Linux for your taste (sorry Naw :D) (23 Viewers)

[JCK]

Well there is no escape that amaroK is indeed a piece of art.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Well there is no escape that amaroK is indeed a piece of art.

i loved amaroK the very first time i tried it!!! it's so full of features!

 

[Martin]

Amarok is getting adequate love :smile:

 

[V]

Well there is no escape that amaroK is indeed a piece of art.

all of KDE is a piece of art.

I don't know what you are talking about but I've been trying to install kuickshow for the past half an hour and it is as impossible as sending a file via kopete.

check out this thread for more info:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=203467

the last post seems to explain it, but i'd figure they would have went around it after three releases.

 

[gray]

I'm not at home yet, but after hearing the rave about Amarok as a piece of art, I couldn't resist looking up a screenie of it. Here's the first one I found... is it an accurate representation of Amarok? (read: does it do justice to it?)

(i won't attach it and stuff up the page layout)

http://www.osnews.com/img/9097/amarok.png

 

[V]

I'm not at home yet, but after hearing the rave about Amarok as a piece of art, I couldn't resist looking up a screenie of it. Here's the first one I found... is it an accurate representation of Amarok? (read: does it do justice to it?)

(i won't attach it and stuff up the page layout)

http://www.osnews.com/img/9097/amarok.png

that's amarok alright, but a little customized, some extra plugins installed and stuff. personally i think the default one looks nicer and cleaner.

here's a screenshot tour of the new amaroK:
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=643&slide=1&title=amarok+1.4.0+screenshots

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

 

[JCK]

I hope they don't make a windows version of amaroK.

 

[gray]

here's a screenshot tour of the new amaroK:
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=643&slide=1&title=amarok+1.4.0+screenshots

Thanks for that

At first I was thinking "he sent me a screenshot of the damn splash screen!?"

I hope they don't make a windows version of amaroK.

Why's that Jack? I can think of a few reasons but I'm curious what yours could be, because it obviously wouldn't affect the Linux version of Amarok.

 

[JCK]

Thanks for that

At first I was thinking "he sent me a screenshot of the damn splash screen!?"


Why's that Jack? I can think of a few reasons but I'm curious what yours could be, because it obviously wouldn't affect the Linux version of Amarok.

No, I am sure it won't affect the Linux version, but it a selfish thought. I think I totally dislike windows and I am in love with amaroK. It is like there can't be a better music player. Hell it is much more than a music player
Another reason is I do like to bring as many people to the bright side as possible, so if amaroK is the bait, then let it be

 

[gray]

No, I am sure it won't affect the Linux version, but it a selfish thought. I think I totally dislike windows and I am in love with amaroK. It is like there can't be a better music player. Hell it is much more than a music player
Another reason is I do like to bring as many people to the bright side as possible, so if amaroK is the bait, then let it be

That thought occurred to me too, and was the most likely reason I could think of, but then I figured... what regular Windows user is going to get a chance to try out Linux/Amarok anyway? Isn't there more chance of someone 'seeing the light' if Amarok becomes available for Windows and people become curious about its origins, thereby opening the door to FOSS and the Linux world?

Imagine if the Mozilla/Firefox boom never happened, and people (including myself) who had their first taste of open source software being head and shoulders above commercial bloatware never got that opportunity.

People who use Windows aren't inherently bad people They just don't know what's available to them.

 

[JCK]

Hmm, you make a good point here.

It is probably the reason why more open source applications are being created for Windows than before. It is some kind of awareness program actually.

 

[gray]

I'm sorry to do this to you guys, but I've read about 15 different guides on dual-booting Ubuntu and WinXP, and there's too much variation in the information for me to be able to trust a single source, so I'm going to have to ask you guys to help me out.

I'm planning to allocate 45gb to Ubuntu, 15gb to WinXP and a 10gb fat32 partition for file sharing. What's the best method to go about setting everything up?

Right now I'm thinking I'll wipe my drive and start from scratch, then install WinXP first. Once that's done, I'll boot up Ubuntu Live and use GParted to set up my other partitions, then install Ubuntu.

My question is: In which partitioning step should I create each partition in question, and are there any other partitions I should make? One of the reasons for my confusion is that some of the guides have mentioned creating a lot of different partitions (see linked screenshot), but I'm not too sure about that...

http://www.hezardastan.org/breezy_xp_dualboot/en/images/15.png

Also, is the following a good piece of advice? If so, what's with all the different partitions required? And do I need to scale some of the sizes according to my HDD capacity? (70Gb)

* The first primary partition is your Windows partition.
* The first extended partition is a transfer partition for enabling read/write access to files from all operating systems, and needs to be either a FAT32 partition or a FAT16 partition
* The second extended partition is the first Linux partition, and should be set up in the Linux installation process. For only Windows and one Linux version, a 500MB partition is more than enough room. It will be given the label of /boot [500MB in size ]
* You will need to create a partition with the label / [5 GB in size]
* Create a partition with the label /home [remaining amount of space for distribution]
* Create a partition with the label /usr [5 GB in size]
* Create a partition with the label /var [1 or 2 GB in size]
* Create a partition with the label /swap [double your RAM in size]

 

[Martin]

Graham: partition everything right at the start, that's the easiest way. If you install Win first, use the partitioner in the installer.

For linux you will need a root (/) and a swap (called 'pagefile' in Win). The swap is usually <your physical ram>*2. And don't bother with separate partitions for /usr, /var and so on, that's more hassle than benefit.

 

[gray]

Graham: partition everything right at the start, that's the easiest way. If you install Win first, use the partitioner in the installer.

For linux you will need a root (/) and a swap (called 'pagefile' in Win). The swap is usually <your physical ram>*2. And don't bother with separate partitions for /usr, /var and so on, that's more hassle than benefit.

Cheers Martin

I have heard many reasons for switching to ubuntu, but mine has to be the best.

After a rather fine night out on the town, I came home in a rather inebriated state. Put the live disc in, and recklessly choose to install Ubuntu, and did so by wiping the entire hard drive (previously XP). This sort of switch has sortof thrown me in at the deep end, but I have no regrets and has to be one of the best drunken decisions I have ever taken...

 

[JCK]

Why do you want to allocate 45 GB for ubuntu, I advice you to split that in two parts, one for / and one to mount on for example /files.

I would give / 15 GB and swap what it needs and the rest to be formatted as ext3 and you can use them for storage.

 

[Martin]

Originally Posted by http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=278178

I have heard many reasons for switching to ubuntu, but mine has to be the best.

After a rather fine night out on the town, I came home in a rather inebriated state. Put the live disc in, and recklessly choose to install Ubuntu, and did so by wiping the entire hard drive (previously XP). This sort of switch has sortof thrown me in at the deep end, but I have no regrets and has to be one of the best drunken decisions I have ever taken...

Dude, I am so drunk right now, let's do something craaaaaaazy!! Oh I know, I'll install ubuntu lol. Yeah, and then I'll make myself a sandwich, with twice the amount of butter!!

 

[JCK]

Dude, I am so drunk right now, let's do something craaaaaaazy!! Oh I know, I'll install ubuntu lol. Yeah, and then I'll make myself a sandwich, with twice the amount of butter!!

I think I was in that state when I started installing gentoo, but without the sandwich part

That was a joke, installing gentoo recquires sane decisions

 

[gray]

Why do you want to allocate 45 GB for ubuntu, I advice you to split that in two parts, one for / and one to mount on for example /files.

I would give / 15 GB and swap what it needs and the rest to be formatted as ext3 and you can use them for storage.

So you're saying for example:

Windows NTFS: 15GB
Ubuntu / : 15GB
Swap : 1GB
Ext3 : 40GB

??

I was thinking along those lines, but I'm a total data hog so I didn't want to have too much 'leftover' space on my WinXP and Ubuntu partitions. Would that be a problem if I went with the above setup? I've still got a couple of hours before all my data's backed up and I can take the plunge btw

Also, how does that fit in with my wanting a fat32 partition for shared write access?

 

[Martin]

Graham, you can go with fat32 for Windows, works fine. Btw it's possible to use ext3 in Windows as well: http://www.fs-driver.org/

I tried it last night, works fine. Didn't any benchmarks on it, though.