Linux for the rest of US, Ubuntu's (un)friendliness, dual boot win10 and 18,4lts

[alpher]

Just tried to install Ubuntu 18.4LTS alongside my windows 10 install, imagined it to be rather smooth an painless process , boy I was wrong.
I've installed and used a couple of versions both Ubuntu and it's light weigh cousin Lubuntu, both times it was a straightforward fresh install on a wiped hdd.
Now for a couple of reasons I wanted to have it installed alongside my windows 10 install.
What could be difficult here I thought?, convincing a windows user to switch to Linux has to be one of the most important (if not THE one!) priorities of the Ubuntu team, I'm I right here?
My reasoning: to bring people to the (dark  ) side one has to make it easy first to try the product then to convince future converts that the Linux is a better or at least not inferior choice.
After all it is free .
So in my naivety I fired up a freshly downloaded 18.4lts image from a USB stick hoping that given the above the installer will somehow automagicaly  allow me to create a new partition and install ubuntu there without much intervention, guess not.
OK. I gather I have to resize my partitions beforehand, done.
I have a fresh empty partition ready to accept my new Ubuntu install, I'll fire up the installer, point to the empty space, hit install and voilla!! , you guessed.
Instead of accepting the destination, and doing all the "necessary" prep work all by itself, I'm being bombarded with options to create extra partitions, formating options that let you choose from like 20 different filesystems?
How the f#uck I'm supposed to know what partitions to create, how many, and what's the mount point?
I know that there are guides on the net regarding this, but why, I mean WHY the geniuses at Ubuntu didn't think of doing it somehow easier for the first time potential convert?
Couldn't the installer somehow interactively guided you through the process? Is it to difficult a programming task in 2019?
Or is the secret goal of all the Ubuntu programmers to keep the Linux acceptance at below 1.5% mark?

[Ampera]

I mean to be fair there isn't really a benchmark by how it /should/ be done. Partitioning and installing is a (relatively) complicated thing that can't just be automated. It's not like you can install Windows on a machine that has Linux on it and expect the Windows installer to figure out how the hell to dual boot it.

The thing about Linux, and the thing that so many people don't get (including Ubuntu) is that it's best when you consider it's a sophisticated piece of software you need to learn. While Windows might try to cater to a simpler audience, Linux and Windows are /different/ and do things in different ways with different steps and often to different ends.

What I don't get about people complaining when everything just doesn't work for them like they think it should in Linux is why they are drawn to Linux in the first place. You can't expect me to believe some marketing saying that it's magically easy to use is the sole reason why you want to use it. If Windows is working for you better than Linux, then that's great, and feel free to leave Linux and its universe be, there's no reason we can't eventually come to a two OS ecosystem (there have been many many before). If you're finding that Windows isn't doing what you want it to, and want something different, don't act upset and surprised when it is different.

[I wanted a rude username]

The idea is to get people to switch to Linux, and the defaults are an easy way to do that. Accept defaults, and the installer razes your hard drive and does all the partitioning, filesystem selection, bootloader installation, etc. for you.

As soon as you want the installer to accept responsibility for not nuking existing data, the situation gets way harder. You could argue that hiding that behind an "Advanced" option is actually desirable.

[alpher]

The idea is to get people to switch to Linux, and the defaults are an easy way to do that. Accept defaults, and the installer razes your hard drive and does all the partitioning, filesystem selection, bootloader installation, etc. for you.

As soon as you want the installer to accept responsibility for not nuking existing data, the situation gets way harder. You could argue that hiding that behind an "Advanced" option is actually desirable.

Actually the installer defaults to a fresh install, Nuking all existing data into oblivion.
I find it quite unacceptable, letting you install and effectively use the os without nuking the existing data should be the highest priority, option to Nuke should be just that an OPTION, not the default.

[ebclr]

Follow this instruction you will be surprised by how easy and useful this is 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install-win10

[drussell]

^^ Why on earth would you want to run linux on top of windows?   

[scatterandfocus]

I have installed Linux distros to a separate partition along with Windows on the same drive plenty of times, not always without problems to be solved.  I always recommend installing the two os's to their own drives.  It just makes for an all around easier time of things. 

[BravoV]

After all it is free .

That is a hype, especially for Linux noob.

Try calculate the time spent fiddling, swearing, emotional moments, and not to mention accidents say like mistakenly wiped out your important data partition and etc, I believe it will be cheaper just to sell your soul buy Windows license.

The journey for Windows users that are "sincerely" want to start into Linux is not an easy path.

Let alone asking for help in the net, cause if you're unlucky, you may face certain weird Linux mobs just love to bash new comers like you like ... we don't spoon feed you, real man use command line, your soul already belong to Bill Gates and why the hell we want to help you and etc. 

Should you must ask at the net, like in a forum, disguise as a girl, use hot chick photo as your avatar, and pretend you're total noob in computing, and you inherited a Windows PC if you have to mention Windows in your question, that will work most of the times.

PS : Do NOT dual boot in a single boot drive, buy separate boot drive, or use your old unused/HD for that, leave your current Windows boot drive untouched.

[Ampera]

^^ Why on earth would you want to run linux on top of windows?   

Because someone doesn't have to run Linux, but Linux apps.

Unless they are IA-32, require X (possible with forwarding to Xming technically), or direct access to some hardware iirc. You might as well have linked him VMWare Player or VirtualBox, it's way better than WSL.

I've dual booted without knowing what I was doing on Ubuntu plenty of times. It's by far not the most complicated thing I've done on Linux. Ubuntu actually does a fairly good job at doing this for you, if you politely ask it to install besides Windows, or if you do it manually, shrink the NTFS partition and make an ext4 partition. This isn't hard, and could have been solved with a two minute google search about how to do it.

[BravoV]

...... if you politely ask it to install besides Windows, or if you do it manually, shrink the NTFS partition and make an ext4 partition. This isn't hard, and could have been solved with a two minute google search about how to do it.

To OP, if you opted this path, make sure you've saved the Windows partition drive image, and thoroughly tested that you can restore everything back as before. And if that PC is your ONLY computer that can connect to the net, assuming you don't have other PC/Laptop/Tablet that can be used to browse internet looking/searching for help/documentation and etc, then you are screwed, big times.

[NiHaoMike]

Try calculate the time spent fiddling, swearing, emotional moments, and not to mention accidents say like mistakenly wiped out your important data partition and etc, I believe it will be cheaper just to sell your soul buy Windows license.

As opposed to Windows taking way more time than necessary to install updates? Linux got it right with updates that install in the background, and if a reboot is needed, it's only a short time for it to be ready again.

[BravoV]

Try calculate the time spent fiddling, swearing, emotional moments, and not to mention accidents say like mistakenly wiped out your important data partition and etc, I believe it will be cheaper just to sell your soul buy Windows license.

As opposed to Windows taking way more time than necessary to install updates? Linux got it right with updates that install in the background, and if a reboot is needed, it's only a short time for it to be ready again.

Context/scope of my argument is specifically for the early migration period for a Linux noob, that is a Windows user, exactly what the OP is doing now.

[techman-001]

Just tried to install Ubuntu 18.4LTS alongside my windows 10 install, imagined it to be rather smooth an painless process , boy I was wrong.

I've an idea, why not wipe Windows and  install the totally Free Ubuntu 18.4LTS ...

THEN

Install Windows, but don't forget to pop back here and tell us how easy Windows installs and works alongside Ubuntu ?

[james_s]

Getting two operating systems to coexist on the same hard drive has never been easy, and Windows makes no attempt to coexist peacefully, in fact some suggest that it makes this deliberately as difficult as possible.

My advice is install each OS onto its own hard drive, drives are insanely cheap, even modest SSDs have gotten quite cheap. Once you've had Linux going for a while you may well find you have little reason to go back, and it's trivial to boot Windows in a VM within Linux for those applications that really need Windows. VirtualBox is fantastic.

[CatalinaWOW]

And people wonder why Linux adoption is so low.  To paraphrase some of the answers here.

1.  Of course Linux is hard.  It isn't a general tool for getting things done, it is a powerful tool that requires much study to use properly.  If you just want to use your computer to solve daily tasks this isn't the place for you. 

While the PC revolution was started by folks who just wanted to have a computer to play with, the vast majority of personal computer users today just want a tool to make whatever they are doing easier.  Whether it is writing a book, scaling recipes or doing schematic capture the tool isn't the reason for being here.

2.  You can't automate the Linux installation because (refer back to one) there are so many different ways to do things the installer couldn't possibly presume to make any choices.

There is some standardization in Linux, but the flexibility really does dominate.  No OS does perfectly on this, but Linux scatters files everywhere, and each distro seems to have it's own preferred layout.  I am not an expert on this, but I haven't seen an installer with even a general explanation of what you might want and why.  You can let the installers make their own choices, look at what was done and draw some inferences, but by then you have already committed fairly firmly to a plan.

3.  Just forget about the Windows world.

If only we could.  But honest folk recognize there are some programs which just aren't available on the Linux side.  Even when a suitable replacement is available you are asking folk to abandon much experience and training, in some cases decades.  With little or no benefit, since in most cases the Linux programs are not vastly superior to other alternatives. 

4.  Windows is just as bad.

So?  Often the reason people are trying Linux is because of how bad Windows is.  If Linux is not better, why switch.   This last one is actually the best of the lot, but is only partially true.  My experience with the recent versions of Windows is that you stick the disk in, agree to the licencing statements, agree to the default install and walk away.  The installation happens, and works.  But also in recent Windows versions you have to walk away for hours and hours (and remember that we have these computers so we can do something with them, not listen to hours of disk thrashing and watching endless screen changes. 

Windows is giving Linux an opportunity to take over many desktops.  It has switched user interfaces in ways that many don't like, it has reached into pocketbooks with its subscription model, it has become more cumbersome to install and maintain, and it has attacked our privacy.  Many, many people are considering a switch - some vaguely, others with serious interest.  If there is a huge amount of learning and retraining and if the only benefit to switching is a savings of a hundred or two dollars a year a huge number of those people won't make the jump.  I speak with knowledge - I am one of them.  Microsoft has been pushing me away for almost two decades now, starting with the ribbon interface for its office products.  Every few years it pushes a little harder.  But so far the Linux barriers, many of which are unnecessary, has kept me with only a toe in the water.  A secondary machine dedicated to Linux and a once seldom used boot option that became unusable at one of the Linux respins.  After many tries to recover (including fresh installs over the existing partition structure) I just reformatted it all to Windows and left it.  I am sure the problem was solvable, but I already have plenty of hobbies.

[james_s]

And people wonder why Linux adoption is so low.  To paraphrase some of the answers here.

1.  Of course Linux is hard.  It isn't a general tool for getting things done, it is a powerful tool that requires much study to use properly.  If you just want to use your computer to solve daily tasks this isn't the place for you. 

That's just not true at all, it's not hard, people parroting that have clearly not spent any time using a modern consumer-aimed distro in the last 5 years or so. It's quite polished and easy to use, my computer illiterate mother has been on Linux for 2 years now and it just works, I spend much less time fixing her laptop.

What is hard is getting two different operating systems to coexist side by side, this is an advanced topic, for comparison go ahead and install Windows 8 and Windows 10 side by side on the same drive and let us all know how easy that was.

Adoption is low primarily for two inter-related reasons. 99.9% of consumer PCs come preinstalled with either Windows or MacOS and 99.9% of consumers just use whatever comes with the PC they buy and put up with it.

This leads to and is led to by the fact that most consumer-targeted software is for Windows or to a lesser extent Mac, especially games. If one is not a gamer and does not need Photoshop or Autocad then there is very little real need for Windows anymore. People will keep using it for some time though because that's what people do, they stick with what they are used to until it becomes completely unbearable, there is a great deal of momentum, you see this everywhere.

[wilfred]

Most people, quite unlike those on internet forums who feel a need to share their particular opinions, just use the OS that came on their computer. That's the limit of their interest in operating systems.

That's why Linux adoption is as it is. I don't know where the Linux zealots get off thinking Linux must be mainstream. That's what Windows is for.

Linux is for those interested in computers and for them it is a lifestyle choice. You get to choose the configuration you want. For most people that is the last thing they want to be doing.

[soldar]

I always recommend installing the two os's to their own drives.  It just makes for an all around easier time of things.

This. It cannot be repeated enough. Installing Linux and Windows on the same physical drive is asking for trouble.

[techman-001]

Most people, quite unlike those on internet forums who feel a need to share their particular opinions, just use the OS that came on their computer. That's the limit of their interest in operating systems.

That's why Linux adoption is as it is. I don't know where the Linux zealots get off thinking Linux must be mainstream. That's what Windows is for.

Linux is for those interested in computers and for them it is a lifestyle choice. You get to choose the configuration you want. For most people that is the last thing they want to be doing.

No, to everything you just wrote. You couldn't be more misinformed.

[techman-001]

And people wonder why Linux adoption is so low. 

Wrong.

Linux people don't wonder why Linux has been illegally kept from the retail market by Microsoft, they know exactly why.

If not for Microsofts predatory business practices, Linux would have been available in stores for at least $100 less on the same hardware, and that $100 discount would make which 'computer' to buy a easy choice for MA and PA pc buyer.

You can't 'adopt' what you don't know exists.

[wilfred]

Most people, quite unlike those on internet forums who feel a need to share their particular opinions, just use the OS that came on their computer. That's the limit of their interest in operating systems.

That's why Linux adoption is as it is. I don't know where the Linux zealots get off thinking Linux must be mainstream. That's what Windows is for.

Linux is for those interested in computers and for them it is a lifestyle choice. You get to choose the configuration you want. For most people that is the last thing they want to be doing.

No, to everything you just wrote. You couldn't be more misinformed.

Sure I could.

[Mechatrommer]

painless? let me tell you what is painless. having to install Windows (95/XP back then) 3-5 times a day, some older version in diskettes like 10 diskettes. pulling out display and sound cards etc to reconfigure hardwares, changing cdrom connection because it cannot be detected by that dos/bios driver i forgot the name. installing plethora of softwares just to try out which is to keep and which to trash, install linux, not good, trash it, reinstall windows again, start to develop night insomnianess. thats going on for months, that is painless. today is painful, we have a cd, put it in a blank computer and 30 minutes later we have a brand new OS. ps: to burn Win764bit installation ISO on the just arrived double layer DVD+R the next minute i shut down this computer. cheers.

[knapik]

This. It cannot be repeated enough. Installing Linux and Windows on the same physical drive is asking for trouble.

I've done it quite a few times and yeah its usually quite a pain. Most of my issues stem from the fact that Windows will usually cryptically refuse to install onto a partition because it doesn't like the partition table. And then windows doesn't automatically install drivers for you. That's another headache too.

[techman-001]

No, to everything you just wrote. You couldn't be more misinformed.

Sure I could.

Hahahah, ok, you got me there 

[techman-001]

This. It cannot be repeated enough. Installing Linux and Windows on the same physical drive is asking for trouble.

I've done it quite a few times and yeah its usually quite a pain. Most of my issues stem from the fact that Windows will usually cryptically refuse to install onto a partition because it doesn't like the partition table. And then windows doesn't automatically install drivers for you. That's another headache too.

I've done it a few times also with Linux and Windows95.

Back then you had to install Windows first then Linux because the other way around and Windows would quietly overwrite the boot partition and on reboot all you'd have was .... Windows.