I think people like me lead dual lives - a mobile, assimilate-and-let-go "info-now" life and a more static laid-back static "make-do-with-what-you-have" life. In the ancient past, I might have had a laptop for one life and a desktop for the other but now I have 2 laptops. My bigger older bulkier laptop serves as an emergency back-up for major disasters (which means it never gets used but its there all the same). The other smaller laptop is the one that I port around - almost inevitably to journal clubs and other venues that require me to review some written document.
I gave up printing more than a year back. All my docs are now online and backed up on my 1TB harddrive. I surf the web extensively and all my information gathering happens on this smaller laptop. Since I don't take my harddrive with me, whatever little data I have while on the go is on the tiny laptop. I depend on the net for the rest. So this could well be a netbook. I could get rid of the other laptop, retain my harddrive as a vestige of the ancient desktop and move ahead.
Some day, when I have a blazingly fast broadband satellite access to the net, I could ditch the harddrive as well. I just wonder if this day will coincide with the official release of Chrome OS. :)
I would love to see the owner of the voice in the video in action. I saw the video 3 times just because the presentation was so snappy, and so Google!
And if you are instinctively thinking of Windows when it comes to long boot up times, you would be wrong. The latest Ubuntu takes a WHOLE godawful minute to boot and you can't even mod it easily as you can mod Win XP. I am sick of the holier-than-thou attitude of linuxers when you ask if you could just cut out all the crap add-on software that Ubuntu ships with* - the answer is that its free so you shouldn't expect too much. I say, to hell with you and your snobbish attitude.
If you can't give civilized useful answers to genuine questions from new users, you are no better than the micro$*** folks who just keep making their operating system even more bloated with every revision. At least WinXP can be stripped down to a lean performance beast. Requests for user-friendly ways of slipstreaming and coring Ubuntu make it to the "innovative future ideas" board instead of being listed as priorities and answered - just goes to show how completely behind the times and user-unfriendly Ubuntu (and generally the linux community) really is.
- PS: YES. I have tried Puppy Linux and its no more user-friendly than an esoteric command line system with all the commands in a useless pretty GUI drawn on a puppy's back. :/
typo aargh
SSD
All I'm sayin.
Wow! I'm old enough to think that booting up in a minute is fast. When I first got to work with an IBM pc at work in the early '80s, I think I could go down the street for an ice cream and get back befpre the system was booted. Anyone remember the 2 floppy drives PCs?
The box (e:leetee) uses runs a selectively updated (by me) pclinuxos 2007 :::link::: for stability. We have an asus eee 901 that's running moblin 2.1 :::link::: . I couldn't stand the Xandros gui that the eee came with. I have a couple of boxes that play with. I like e17 (more accurately Enligthenment DR17) :::link::: so I really like elive :::link::: which debian with e17. I tend to play with the latest development versions and push them until they break.
I also run Arch with e17. I'm a distro whore so I've always got a few random distros floating around on stray partitions. I think that I stopped counting how many distros I played when I reached a 100 about 4 years ago.
Wow - thanks so much for the detailed responses (e:uncutsaniflush). Had fun reading them. :)
I did a full install of the latest Ubuntu version on the latest Toshiba laptop (my parent's)- and it took a full minute and some odd seconds to boot up. My mum asked me if it was "up yet" - and she is probably the MOST patient person around!
Keeping a laptop turned on for over a few hours is not really an option for my parents - so boot-up time is a big deal.
Thanks for the Arch recommendation - I will be sure to try it out. I am now really curious to know which distro you and (e:leetee) run. :)
Oh yeah, if you have the time and want to build a customized Linux that only has the apps that you want, I would recommend Arch :::link::: It takes a wee bit of time but eventually you would get a (e:tinypliny) Linux that boots very fast.
Zealots of any Operating System sort be they Linux, osX, or, dare I say it, Windows, are often annoying.
I suspect you encountered some of the RTFM (READ THE FUCKING MANUAL) bunch. Not all Linux users are like that.
That being said, I'm one of the crazies (along with the lovely Lettuce ((e:leetee))) who uses Linux on the desktop every day and we done so since 2001. From what I hear, that makes us weird and crazy. For most people, I would recommend osX as an alternative to Windows before I would recommend Linux because of better software/hardware integration. Unless cost is an issue.
Not all Linuxes run equally well on all hardware. Because of this I would recommend buying a box or 'top with Linux pre-installed to avoid hardware/software compatiblity issues for most people if they want to use Linux as alternative to Windows.
I'm a not a big fan of Ubuntu. I've played with several releases and found it unsatisfactory. But I know lots of people who love it.
As to the Ubuntu boot time, are you talking about a live cd or an installed version? Most distros boot faster from an install than a live cd. One generic way to speed up boot time in Linux is to only start up the services you actually use at boot time. Lots of distros including Ubuntu start up all sorts of unnecessary services to make it more "convenient" for the user.
On Linux boxes, most users measure uptime in weeks and months so a long boot time isn't seen as much of a problem if you boot up a couple times a year. Of course, on a 'top, boot time matters. There are versions of Ubuntu and other distros that specifically configured for net-tops and do a much better job than vanilla Ubuntu.
The GDLF - looks like the French Revolution of data. :)
(e:zobar) - I think Ubuntu out of the box is fine for people who don't care about boot-up times, slow performance, dragging programs etc. The average windows users put up with these things on a regular basis. In fact, I think less viruses are written for linux so it might have a slight advantage if pushed to this kind of user.
But the idea of not having control over the zillion processes running in the background annoys me. Having to wait a minute for the boot sequences drives me crazy. I am happy that I can hack and strip my operating system till its running just the bare minimum I need and nothing extra AND boots in less than 14 seconds.
Naturally, it feels crippling that I can't do this with Ubuntu. The minute you strip out some extra bundled email program or IM chat program in it, a ton of other functionalities are affected without warning. It is as if the garbage is built into the OS. Of course, the minute you point this out at a linux forum, they get all defensive, snobbish and sometimes insulting at your "windows" background. A typical response is "Oh, linux is perfect as it is - keep the whole dirty idea of "modding" to your windows forums. Classic example of non-receptive behaviour.
Google Data Liberation Front: :::link:::
Generally speaking I trust cloud computing because at their data centers even their redundancy has redundancy, redundantly. But the recent large-scale data loss at Danger/Microsoft/Sidekick and the occasional outages at GMail take the cloud analogy a little too far: the computing cloud, unlike real clouds, should not be ephemeral.
I used to use Linux. It was pretty ideal for what I did, but I thought the Linux Desktop people were crazy. Only geeks claimed Linux was ready for non-geeks to use. But that was ten years ago and I'd kind of hoped they'd made a little progress since then.
- Z