Pros and Cons of Migrating to Linux on ThinkPad/Book Recs?

[BOHICA]

Although I would love to not have to deal with all the dumb trappings of Windows bloatware, after reading this board, I'm more confused than ever about the payoff of porting Linux to the ThinkPad.

So far as I can tell, people here often get at least partially inoperable machines once the transition is made, and then they get to spend their free-time trying to fix inoperable drivers, etc. While it's nice not to pay for software, spending lots of extra time getting things to run seems like a very real and substantial cost in the case of this prospective project.

Has anyone here NOT had any trouble porting to Linux? If so, can you recommend a reasonably good, up-to-date book on how to go about making the transition?

[jdhurst]

In the business world, the case has already been made that Linux is just as expensive as Windows. By any reasonable measure, it is also harder to use - simple Install / Uninstall software is not available in any Linux system I have used, although the Linux folk are trying. And I don't know about bloatware - my SuSE Linux 9 machine is 5.5 Gb with no documents or user files, just all the software. I can easily build a Windows XP system in the same space. I haven't seen a single book that would let you install it trouble free, and that is because (I think) that there are so many distributions of Linux that no book could say with authority how to install machine specific hardware. Software is more generic.

I am not saying "don't use Linux" or "Windows is better". I am only saying go in with your eyes open. There is a reason that 96 percent of us use Windows and many of us are very computer literate and aware.

[stgreek]

Although I would love to not have to deal with all the dumb trappings of Windows bloatware, after reading this board, I'm more confused than ever about the payoff of porting Linux to the ThinkPad.

So far as I can tell, people here often get at least partially inoperable machines once the transition is made, and then they get to spend their free-time trying to fix inoperable drivers, etc. While it's nice not to pay for software, spending lots of extra time getting things to run seems like a very real and substantial cost in the case of this prospective project.

Has anyone here NOT had any trouble porting to Linux? If so, can you recommend a reasonably good, up-to-date book on how to go about making the transition?

Yes, I had no trouble porting to Linux. However, I did not use any book and noone that has did. The reason is simple: Linux has a much larger internet-forum community than Windows. If you want to install a distro, go to that distro's forums and you'll find many people that will guide you and help you resolve any issue you might have. Also, if you are interested in getting everything working fine alone, go to www.linux-laptop.net and select IBM. You'll find installation stories on most thinkpad types and most distros there are.

Of course, I won't lie to you. Linux is not nearly as easy as Windows to install, however it is far more rewarding, as you set-up your system the way you want it, not the way MS wants it. As for jd's comment on disk space, do not forget that you also installed hundred's of applications and utilities with your SUSE system, a similar Windows install takes far more. If I do a brand new installation on my Linux system, before I install openoffice & co it takes up 800 MB, comparable to a clean WinXP install.

Finally, one thing: The only drivers on a thinkpad machine that might cause problems are the Intel B/G driver (will work, but not with full funcionality) and the modem drivers (just needs an external driver, then works fine). Everything else (on a TP) works out of the box, on any current Linux distribution.

HTH
Stavros

[yukit]

I would say that the main reason for installing Linux on Thinkpad (or any laptopsfor that matter) is to do software development on a linux platform. So they can deal with minor issues for getting a great portable development environment.

I am guessing that people installing linux on Thinkpad just to learn linux is a small percentage.

[Volker]

simple Install / Uninstall software is not available

Having executables that install/uninstall any piece of software is the most horrible design desicion in the Windows world. I'm always crossing fingers that the installer does not do something irreversable that'll require me to reinstall everything.

Under linux, software is generally in non-executable packages (rpm, deb, whatever distribution you use). The packages are installed by a program that is part of the system. That way, you can be sure that you can get rid of the package if it does not do what you want. The package system can also tell you which package installed any given file, whether that file is undamaged etc.

SuSE Linux 9 machine is 5.5 Gb with no documents or user files.

Fair enough, but if you don't have that much space you could have left out a few word processors, compilers, development packages, desktop environments, and so on.

Volker

[jdhurst]

Having executables that install/uninstall any piece of software is the most horrible design desicion in the Windows world. I'm always crossing fingers that the installer does not do something irreversable that'll require me to reinstall everything.
Volker

/me scratches head. At no time (except for explicit Windows software such as DirectX) has any piece of install software done anything non-reversible. And at no time ever going all the back to Windows 3.1 have I ever had to reinstall a machine because of a broken install.

There are more questions asked in Linux forums ("How do I install yyyy?") than can be feasibly numbered that I don't know why you would call Software Install/Uninstall a horrible design decision? (a) not really true, in my opinion, and (b) that simple omission in Linux stops many newbies from even trying it.

I get tired of having to compile things to install them (Nessus, for example), and installing Sun Java used to be a real pain in RedHat. A little better in SuSE. It is also not clear where the setup is in a number of packages (e.g., setting video resolution in a VMware guest). Even this is improving, but at a pace so slow it is causing Linux not to be adopted except for hardened techies.

To be fair to your point, Uninstalls have been notoriously bad, but have much improved of late in commercial software. I haven't had an uninstall failure for a long time now.

Maybe you have had more difficulty than me for any number of reasons. I just wanted to note that my Windows life is not as bad (by a mile) as your post was suggesting.

Cheers, ... JD Hurst

[egibbs]

I'm running both Windows (XP Pro) and Linux (Ubuntu) on my TP.

Windows is like an apartment in the city that I use for business - it's convenient but I don't own it.

Linux is lie a place in the country that I am fixing up. It's a lot more work but if I don't like some part of it I can rip it out and put something totally different in it's place.

Ed Gibbs

[Volker]

At no time (except for explicit Windows software such as DirectX) has any piece of install software done anything non-reversible. And at no time ever going all the back to Windows 3.1 have I ever had to reinstall a machine because of a broken install.

I agree that - especially with the MS kit to write sane installers - the situation has much improved, especially for renowned programs. But the fact remains that it is a kludge, and if things go wrong you're doomed. I dare you to install 20 small shareware programs and then uninstall them. See whether you got rid of every single dll and registry entry Plus, there is no mechanism for updates, network install, verification of integrity, and so on for third-party software.

Sun's java vm is a bit hard to install, but that is mostly sun's fault. Last time I did it you had to unpack a shar-archive to finally get to the rpm package. Once you have the actual package, its trivial to install.

[GoEatFood]

if you are looking for a book on using linux in general with a few good tips on how to getting popular versions up and running on your computer go with a the "Linux Bible". I find it very helpful and it's good for those times when you can access the internet for some reason...

[carbon_unit]

If you are new to linux and want an easy install with easy to install applications you should go with a newbie style linux like Xandros or Linspire. They make it easy to try linux and most stuff works right out of the box.
Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora and Mandrive are more advanced distros which are a little harder to install and require more configuration to fit a particular machine.
Slackware, Gentoo and such are more geek style distros with a tough install and many things are configured by hand but once tuned they are highly optimized for your particular machine.
I have tried a lot of distros over the years but I keep coming back to the newbie distros because I don't want to spend two days tweaking the system to my liking and the newbie distros just happen to set things up the way I like. So why not take advantage of that fact?
I can pop in a Xandros cd and it will resize my ntfs partition and install in about 15 minutes. All the drivers are already installed and after I add a few more apps with the point and click installer, I am ready to change backgrounds, enable some transparency and icon zooming and I am done. All in less than an hour.
If you have questions after the install I recommend that you go to the respective forums and search for the answer. If you can't find it then sign up and ask a question. This works much better and faster than any book or owners manual. The forums are where the answers are, that is why you are here now.

The reason linux install are larger than a bare windows install is that linux usually comes with lots of drivers and applications preinstalled. A bare windows install does not come with an office suite, instant messenger, an advanced image editor, etc. preinstalled.

If you tried linux and left because it is way too hard , you tried the wrong distro.

[noordinaryspider]

I am a Linux user who specifically chose a Thinkpad for my first laptop because of all the rave reviews I saw about them on Linux forums.

My experience with desktops has been that things don't always go the way you expect them to. My best Compaq won't even boot to a live CD and my POS Compaq has turned out to be my main workhorse; the Dell with the great sound card doesn't have sound on anything but Slackware and the Dell with the crummy onboard card sings like a canary no matter what I put in there.

My advice would be to try as many live CDs as you can even if you get a bit silly about it and then you'll have a better idea of which distro will give you the least trouble when you install it to HDD and also be able to make an informed decision about what you like and don't like and which apps you will actually use.

My personal preference is for fast, clean, and uncomplicated. I'm currently using Dam* Small Linux, Slackware, and Kubuntu, but my Thinkpad will have some say on which distro she wants to run once she gets here from the warehouse.

[AndreasMeier]

No problems with Ubuntu Hoary or Kubuntu Hoary (KDE) on my T42. Most everything is working out of the box, exept some ACPI-things which are easily configured. All is well documented in some howtos in the net.

Just try it on your machine and you will probably change your mind.
My system is running just fine and stable.

Kind regards
Andreas

[karnesky]

In the business world, the case has already been made that Linux is just as expensive as Windows.

This is open to debate. What isn't open to debate is that you have already paid for XP on the ThinkPad.

simple Install / Uninstall software is not available in any Linux system I have used

But dpkg/portage/etc. are BETTER. I haven't been able to update/upgrade all of my apps in win32 with a single command.

And I don't know about bloatware - my SuSE Linux 9 machine is 5.5 Gb with no documents or user files, just all the software. I can easily build a Windows XP system in the same space.

Depends on which apps you want. I find I can get more of what I want in less space on Linux, simply because win32 has so much I DON'T want that I can't get rid of.

At no time (except for explicit Windows software such as DirectX) has any piece of install software done anything non-reversible.

Lucky! I have had to run monitors for file changes specifically so I could reverse an install.

I get tired of having to compile things to install them (Nessus, for example)

Many distros have binaries.... Ditto for JVMs.

[jdhurst]

But dpkg/portage/etc. are BETTER. I haven't been able to update/upgrade all of my apps in win32 with a single command.

I have used Portage and thank God I don't have to use it for a living. Too much trouble and nonsense with it. I would rather do multiple updates with Windows because it is easier. As someone noted above, you have to put time (and therefore for me, money) into Linux to make it work smoothly.

Depends on which apps you want. I find I can get more of what I want in less space on Linux, simply because win32 has so much I DON'T want that I can't get rid of.

True, but even paring down what I don't want, SuSE Linux and later RedHat are still bigger than Windows, at least as I have built them.

Lucky! I have had to run monitors for file changes specifically so I could reverse an install.

I don't know what you have done, and cannot speak for it, but 10 years of use is NOT luck. I have not ever had to resort to monitor antics to fix things, so I don't know what you may have done. I have had to remove orphan network devices because of older VMWare issues, and I have had to use Registry First Aid once to fix Access Connections (deliberate screw up on my part), but at the 99 percent level, simple uninstall works a treat.

I am not defending Windows or larting Linux and most certainly not trying to flame your responses. Everyone should use what they wish. I am just saying your statements do not apply, at least not in my very long experience.

... JD Hurst

[karnesky]

I have used Portage and thank God I don't have to use it for a living. Too much trouble and nonsense with it.

What trouble?

I would rather do multiple updates with Windows because it is easier.

I'm not concerned about windows alone, but all of the apps. I have better things to do than hunting down software updates.

As someone noted above, you have to put time (and therefore for me, money) into Linux to make it work smoothly.

The same can be said of Windows.

I don't know what you have done, and cannot speak for it, but 10 years of use is NOT luck. I have not ever had to resort to monitor antics to fix things, so I don't know what you may have done.

It isn't me. It was mostly broken apps. And most of them were in-house apps that I had to run. It should be noted that the MSI format has gone a long way to fix this. It is nice to know that MS also thinks exe installs are bad.

But even popular apps (both commercial and open source) have screwed up windows because of bad uninstallers. Until the most recent Firefox version, if you installed to the wrong directory, uninstallation (which was required for upgrades), could wipe your whole disk.