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.

[Bicurico]

I have had my share of Windows/Ubuntu parallel installation.

My solution to all of this: I nowadays use VirtualBox and just install Ubuntu inside it. That works surprisingly well! And if something breaks, I can restore the image or install a new one in no time. Also, I normally just keep the current session when I shutdown VirtualBox. A restart is rather quick and I can continue where I left. The best of it all is that I copied the container to my laptop, too. So I have the same Ubuntu machine on both computers.

USB devices can be passed onto the virtual machine and that even works quite well for RTL-SDR based devices.

I would not recommend a dual Windows/Ubuntu boot at this time, as you might actually corrupt your whole Windows installation.

Regards,
Vitor

[Mechatrommer]

the Win7Pro64bit just got installed on the other computer, after the DL DVD arrived and got it burned few minutes ago, see how painful it is? if need linux? maybe i'll create another partition for it, or just install another SSD. hit F9 to select boot and install mybuntu. iirc the last time i can dual boot by installing mybuntu later, after the windows got installed. what do you expect? that Microsoft recognize/authenticate/certified Linux? what a dream.

[Bicurico]

Actually, with current Windows 10 1903 you can have a UBUNTU shell!

If you install a X Windows server, you can run any X11 Ubuntu application directly on Windows 10.

https://tutorials.ubuntu.com/tutorial/tutorial-ubuntu-on-windows#0

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

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3055403/windows-10s-bash-shell-can-run-graphical-linux-applications-with-this-trick.html

No need to dream!

Regards,
Vitor

[Electro Detective]

[BravoV]

Actually, with current Windows 10 1903 you can have a UBUNTU shell!

If you install a X Windows server, you can run any X11 Ubuntu application directly on Windows 10.

https://tutorials.ubuntu.com/tutorial/tutorial-ubuntu-on-windows#0

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

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3055403/windows-10s-bash-shell-can-run-graphical-linux-applications-with-this-trick.html

No need to dream!

Regards,
Vitor

I assume you are also aware, that there is always "a catch" , right ? 

[nctnico]

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.

IMHO Virtualbox is a much better route than using dual boot. You can use both OSses at the same time without needing any hassle with dual boot and partitioning.

[Bicurico]

Actually, with current Windows 10 1903 you can have a UBUNTU shell!

If you install a X Windows server, you can run any X11 Ubuntu application directly on Windows 10.

https://tutorials.ubuntu.com/tutorial/tutorial-ubuntu-on-windows#0

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

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3055403/windows-10s-bash-shell-can-run-graphical-linux-applications-with-this-trick.html

No need to dream!

Regards,
Vitor

I assume you are also aware, that there is always "a catch" , right ? 

Actually, I am not aware of what the catch might be, as I do prefer to run Ubuntu in VirtualBox.

[BravoV]

Actually, with current Windows 10 1903 you can have a UBUNTU shell!

If you install a X Windows server, you can run any X11 Ubuntu application directly on Windows 10.

https://tutorials.ubuntu.com/tutorial/tutorial-ubuntu-on-windows#0

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

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3055403/windows-10s-bash-shell-can-run-graphical-linux-applications-with-this-trick.html

No need to dream!

Regards,
Vitor

I assume you are also aware, that there is always "a catch" , right ? 

Actually, I am not aware of what the catch might be, as I do prefer to run Ubuntu in VirtualBox.

As linux noob, I don't know the exhaustive list, but one thing I know is Virtual KVM (VFIO, KVM and QEMU or IOMMU Para-Virtualization etc), not sure if this is the right terms.

Its started from our resident forum's admin "Gnif" work that motivated me to move to Linux at that time because of his work (Read -> HERE : Headless PCIe Passthrough), as I invested quite powerful Ryzen machine.

The plan is actually reverse from your suggestion, running Windows (near native speed even for gaming  ) on top of Linux. This is for me, is an almost ideal solution for moving to Linux, but alas, I had problem and postponed it until now.

[Bicurico]

So your remark was actually not valid for my statement: you can, as an option, run UBUNTU shell and even X11 applications right on plain Windows! I don't see any cath here, apart from obvious potential compatibility issues.

The other way around is possible, also. The WINE project recreated (not emulated/copied) the Windows libraries. However, there is a long road to go, ascompatibility is stil low.

Anyway, I don't understand where the problem is: just run Linux as a virtual machine inside Windows or run Windows as a virtual machine inside Linux.

You can share files using shared folders and pass access to most USB devices. Works pretty well, actually.

Regads,
Vitor

[Ampera]

Here's the catches for WSL:

Windows 10 only (obviously)
64-bit binaries only
X is possible, but good luck getting much in the way of randr and hardware accelerated anything. You're basically limited to programs that can communicate solely in X.
All sessions are Windows Store only.
You have very little direct hardware access, emulated or otherwise compared to a VM
Limited distro selection (though this is I believe circumventable by an on-the-fly distro swap, don't know, never attempted it)
No Windows integration outside of filesystem access, as opposed to MSYS2 & Cygwin, which can bring Unix apps to your Windows environment, and even desktop.

If you have Linux servers/daemons you want to run on your machine that don't have MSYS2/Cygwin support, then it might be a lighter weight alternative to a VM, but compared to a full fat Linux install direct on hardware, you're not getting anywhere /near/ the software/hardware support, making it in a way more like Wine, just that nobody had to reverse engineer Linux.

I'm noticing a distinct pattern here anyways, Windows people are making assumptions about Linux and Linux people, and a lot of them are simply not true. I'm not here to convert anybody, because that's stupid, but what is even stupider is when people bash a system for stuff that straight up isn't true, usually because they got intimidated by an installer that asked too many scary questions.

[magic]

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?

Welcome to the club of n00b00nt00 haters, you aren't alone in thinking they are joke.
Install Gentoo. At least it comes with documentation and some installation instructions.
 

[BravoV]

So your remark was actually not valid for my statement: you can, as an option, run UBUNTU shell and even X11 applications right on plain Windows! I don't see any cath here, apart from obvious potential compatibility issues.

The other way around is possible, also. The WINE project recreated (not emulated/copied) the Windows libraries. However, there is a long road to go, ascompatibility is stil low.

Anyway, I don't understand where the problem is: just run Linux as a virtual machine inside Windows or run Windows as a virtual machine inside Linux.

You can share files using shared folders and pass access to most USB devices. Works pretty well, actually.

Regads,
Vitor

I'm currently running on Windows 7, seeing & experiencing 8 and 10 just makes me cringe.

Yes, I'm moving out of Windows, hence don't want it running with encapsulated Linux, but the other way around.

Its not I'm afraid of learning or scared of command line, I consider my self power user, spent probably weeks or months tweaking in DOS era like CONFIG.SYS, AUTOEXEC.BAT, on early Windows like WIN.INI, SYSTEM.INI and Windows registry, and wrote thousand lines of .BAT/,CMD batch file in the past.

Its just currently I can not afford to be suck into hours/days and probably weeks of learning and tinkering Linux, yes, I'm an addict into that kind of stuffs, and also I can choose the hardway, by just killing Windows totally, and switch hard start from zero in Linux, but that is not possible, as I need Windows machine in order to feed my family as my business relies on it.

So my "wish", the path of dumping Windows is to have Linux base OS, don't tweak it, just want it to boot and launch Windows virtualization at early stage, and from there its my believe I will start slowly to get to use and live in Linux environment.

I can afford second machine to air gap Windows and Linux, but it will be pointless as I'm aware of my own weakness, the Linux will be left out in the cold mostly. 

In the past I could afford spending weeks or months tinkering with OS, re-format/install again and again, its just now its not possible even I really don't mind doing it at all as I love it. 

[Bicurico]

Please try VirtualBox with Linux inside. Run it in full screen mode and it behaves like a normal Linux installation.

[BravoV]

Please try VirtualBox with Linux inside. Run it in full screen mode and it behaves like a normal Linux installation.

No, you still don't get it.

Don't want to run Linux on top of Windows, period.

[hamster_nz]

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

I have a corporate PC so don't have the luxury of nuking it.

With Ubuntu under Windows Subsystem for Linux I can:

* use a decent SSH and scp client

* clone Git repos and work on code, then compile with GCC. The binaries can be SCPed up to cloud servers and still run

* tinker with the utilities locally, grep/awk/sed and so on, after pulling down files from cloud servers

* can use Linux file utilities on files under /mnt/c/Users/

* write quick hacks.

The good thing is that it is always there. One click and a second for the window to open.

When this isn't enough (usually whem I need a GUI  based program) I do have my own PCs running Linux natively, but only use them once in a while.

[TheNewLab]

Hey,
My 2 cents.
I have used various operating systems for years. Regarding dual booting with Ubuntu 18.04LTS and Windows 10.
Do not make the partitions for Linux before installing. 2nd, I know this is old school, but try installing Ubuntu from a Live DVD.

I have installed Ubuntu and Linux mint dual booting with both Windows 10 and Windows 7.

My procedure is this:
1.) make sure you have windows installed 1st.
2.) Do NOT re-partition.
3.) Load the Live DVD
4.)enter install
5.)When you get to the install option. USE
"Install without removing windows. ..forgot exact language ("beside"? "with windows"?) whatever
6.) Then run the default install. include that "proprietary" additional items. Install with WiFi/internet connected.

The installer will install Linux beside windows in the empty space. it will set up the different Linux file format and install the Grub partition that will include the Windows option when you start up the machine each time.
I have tired and used both the default file format and the LVM format. I have had no problem with it.

I would suggest that you back up your HDD/SSD drive with windows only cloned to a backup drive. just in case. I have had one instance where windows 7, got damaged. I just wiped that drive. cloned the windows only drive to the disk, then re-installed windows, and reinstalled the Linux. both OS's with all settings set and additional apps included in the backup drives.

Now the startup screen will show Linux as the 1st choice and windows as the alternate choice. no big deal.
I have also adjusted the size of the partitions using GParted app in Linux and have no problem.

If you are still having difficulty, PM me with a detailed list of steps you have taken and the problem(s) that occurred. I will do my best to help you.

An aside.
 I have the Electronics related apps for test equipment installed on windows and on Linux using WINE. Some work fine on Linux, others don't so I use windows. No big deal.

[SiliconWizard]

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

I have a corporate PC so don't have the luxury of nuking it.
(...)

Yep. That's one good reason. In many companies other than the ultra-small ones, you can't even install anything on the company's PCs other than the OS supported by the IT department. So if this is Windows, which is still pretty often, your only option is to run other OSs as virtual machines.

Now if you have the luxury to have additional gear, you can also have a dedicated Linux "box", which you access from the network. This is what I do. I built small machines for Linux work that are headless (no monitor, no keyboard, just ethernet connection...) It won't cost you a fortune. As an example, one I have is in a small, passively-cooled enclosure, with a thin-mini-itx motherboard, 16GB RAM and a Core i7/4790S. Those draw little power, can be 100% passively cooled (never overheated!), and are still pretty powerful. Small, low-power, no noise. No issue. No virtual layers.

[nctnico]

Please try VirtualBox with Linux inside. Run it in full screen mode and it behaves like a normal Linux installation.

No, you still don't get it.

Don't want to run Linux on top of Windows, period.

Then install Linux and run Windows in a VM. Any other way like dual boot is more difficult in terms of installing AND you can't use both OSses at the same time. A VM gets you the best of both worlds.

[Bicurico]

Please try VirtualBox with Linux inside. Run it in full screen mode and it behaves like a normal Linux installation.

No, you still don't get it.

Don't want to run Linux on top of Windows, period.

You did not understand me:

Install Linux and run Windows inside VirtualBox.

Look a few post up from the one you quoted. It works any way around.

[eugenenine]

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.

One of the many reasons I switched from Windows to Linux is because it took so much work keeping windows working.  My wife uses her windows laptop maybe once or twice a month and I usually have to fix something, I used my Linux laptop daily and can't even remember when the last time was I had to fix something.

[techman-001]

Install Linux and run Windows inside VirtualBox.

That's right, no one in their right mind runs Linux UNDER Windows.

That's like robbing the armored car after it leaves the bank but before it has collected the money 

I've personally looked after full resource Linux Zeon servers with Kvm/Qemu Virtual machines and iscsi data stores running guest  Window Servers. That way businesses can run their proprietary Windows only applications (such as 'Medical Director' in General Medical Practices that turn over $millions a year) with reliability.

They have the Windows images backed up under Linux so if a Windows server shi*ts itself, they can have it back up in minutes, no Windows re installs needed.

The days of business owners spending sleepless nights worrying if a Windows crash is going to bring their business down have been over for a long time, thanks to Linux and virtual machines.

[nctnico]

The days of business owners spending sleepless nights worrying if a Windows crash is going to bring their business down have been over for a long time, thanks to Linux and virtual machines.

That is one thing which is for sure. When Windows starts acting up I just roll back the VM and a few seconds later I'm back in business. No more endless trying to re-install drivers or try to fix the registry by going through several MS knowledge base articles. Needless to say the VM doesn't contain any data.

Still for trying Linux (or out of convenience) you can run Linux under Windows in a VM. I have that on my (very old) laptop and it works well.

In both cases an SSD is strongly recommended.

[BravoV]

Please try VirtualBox with Linux inside. Run it in full screen mode and it behaves like a normal Linux installation.

No, you still don't get it.

Don't want to run Linux on top of Windows, period.

Then install Linux and run Windows in a VM. Any other way like dual boot is more difficult in terms of installing AND you can't use both OSses at the same time. A VM gets you the best of both worlds.

Yeah, thats the plan.

Please try VirtualBox with Linux inside. Run it in full screen mode and it behaves like a normal Linux installation.

No, you still don't get it.

Don't want to run Linux on top of Windows, period.

You did not understand me:

Install Linux and run Windows inside VirtualBox.

Look a few post up from the one you quoted. It works any way around.

My mistake, had brain fart moment, yes, thats it, actually I had QEMU in mind, still undecided yet.

Two main reasons :

- A 'stable' host OS that doesn't keep rebooting and/or updating by itself constantly, like Win10 does. 
- A smooth (hopefully) transition from Windows to Linux.

Note : I'm aware of Windows LTSB or LTSC , its just I just want to do it as simple as possible just using avg. Joe configuration for the OSes, like plain Jane Windows 10.

PS : Just read recently, that Windows 10 is now "automatically" hide the local account when the machine is connected to it's mothership. 

[BravoV]

Just read recently, that Windows 10 is now "automatically" hide the local account when the machine is connected to it's mothership. 

You still can set up a local account if:

1. You skip WiFi setup in post-installation window before setting up an account, or
2. You setup a MS account, then go to Settings and revert it back to local account. MSFT doesn't want you to do this by preventing you from creating a local account that's the same name as your MS account, so you have to create a temporary account, nuke the MS account, then create a new local account with your account name, then nuke the temporary account.

I'm aware of that trick, offline installation and account creation.

Its just after reading this -> Windows 10 users fume: Microsoft, where's our 'local account' option gone? ....

... the real question is ...

How do you know your local account that was created using above trick, will not be nuked by MS in the future , and one day after a stealthy update sent, and suddenly a dialog box pop up, forcing you to create one once you're online ?

[rrinker]

 Hmm, I've done this in the past with several versions of Ubuntu, with older machines and obviously long before Windows 10, and never had any problems getting a Linux partition created and dual boot with Windows. But then, I haven't tried recently, the last Ubuntu install I did was on a machine dedicated to Linux, no Windows in sight. So perhaps with Windows 7 and newer, this has changed.
 I'm not saying it was "just click next" simple, but neither was it too difficult to figure out how to do wt without wiping out my Windows install in the process. And do they no longer have the test drive feature, where you could boot your computer with an alternative media under Ubuntu and play around with it all you wanted without actually installing anything to the existing drive? That was always useful to see if your hardware was truly compatible or if you might need to find or (even worse) compile your own drivers. Not everyone can do this, but then not everyone can install Windows, either. Ubuntu or any other Linux distro is no magic bullet that even those whose computer skills are limited to emailing and browsing the web can install - but neither is Windows.
 There's also some misrepresentation back on the first page - current Windows DOES update in the background, and then notify (or if it's already past the 'busy' time you can configure, automatically) reboot if necessary. There's no requirement to stop working just to download and/or install the updates, just some things will not take effect until after a reboot, which is the case with any OS, you can't replace critical in-use core OS files while they are being used, the best you can do is flag them for replacement at boot, and then reboot. Yes, previous versions of Windows wouldn't pre-install, or install updates that didn't require a restart, until you actually triggered the updates manually (on a personal machine - corporate environments are different, as there are tools to manage this). If you're in a hurry, you cna manually rigger an update check after every restart until you are all caught up - but you don't have to. Same thing in any version of Linux I used, either let it automatically update in the background, or manually force and install updates if you didn't want to just wait and let it do its thing.
 I've also run Linux as a VM under Windows, with multiple methods - VMWare, Hyper-V, and VirtualBox. No dual boot, and for most things, it works quite well.

 

[james_s]

Just read recently, that Windows 10 is now "automatically" hide the local account when the machine is connected to it's mothership. 

You still can set up a local account if:

1. You skip WiFi setup in post-installation window before setting up an account, or
2. You setup a MS account, then go to Settings and revert it back to local account. MSFT doesn't want you to do this by preventing you from creating a local account that's the same name as your MS account, so you have to create a temporary account, nuke the MS account, then create a new local account with your account name, then nuke the temporary account.

The fact that all these tricks are needed, and the fact that they are constantly changing things and making it harder is enough to make me avoid the whole thing. I shouldn't have to resort to tricks and hacks to accomplish such basic things that are trivial in any other OS.

[malagas_on_fire]

Microsoft wants an account to get you in sync .... and for "telemetry" purposes aka gatter information about OS usages for statistcs.... and thus hiding that option. About dual boot tried  first using virtual machines inside one of the OS. For dual boot the order would be first install Windows and then Linux. Now only linux on main PC and a windows 10 hybrid cheapo

[james_s]

I know they want that, but I don't care what they want, my PC is *mine* and it's all about what *I* want. Until they figure this out they are going to face a lot of backlash, especially the way digital privacy is getting so much attention lately.

[malagas_on_fire]

Yes understand that as PC as being own privacy in terms of hardware, but software is another domain...  you buy, agree licence and hope for the best... or worst... Also on linux there might be some statistical gathering from some applications, but most of them ask if you want to send information.Don't know about apple since not used .  My comment also had some irony since don''t like being sneaked too, unless to get resolution to SO problems.

The two tools required are a gateway for sniffing the connections and a physical firewall for blocking this sort of information if privacy is required, but this should not be necessary to personal user , it should be easy to set the privacy settings.

Today installed a toolchain that added a ton of rules to the windows defender and instalation got bad... i had to remove one by one .... no reset to defaults available on the windows defender, However there that option for windows firewall. The instalation on linux was easy peasy.

[ebclr]

I'm quite happy with WSL, and also I have many VMware  Linux VMS in all flavors, But no one, give the conveniency, to only type bash you are ready on Linux. including X11 graphics using Xming, Also very easy to transfer things between both systems. After I installed WSL I use the virtual machines very rarely for very special circumstances since, near everything that I need to do on Linux I can do on WSL. Things like compilers, fpga programming,  and even wamp server, WSL works much faster thansVM's, and is always there in case you need it.and just in case the virtual machines still there to be used at any time,  just no reason to do not use this quite a useful tool available to any Windows 10 user.

[BravoV]

I think they are just probing for the max they can push.
If the community responds badly enough, they will not to stupid things.

This is not going to end up well, and I think they will take a step back sooner or later.

Starting from stealthy & forced updates, and you're right, they're pushing me to the edge already by this stunt in preventing the owner to use local privileged account, to me personally I feel I've lost the "power" and "control" over my machine. I've seen and experienced enough at my kid's laptop. 

Currently I'm still on W7, looking forward to have Linux host as the baseline, won't tinker much for start as I can't afford it currently, just boot and auto launch W10 virtualization and PCIE passthru feature for the GPU, that is my basic requirement for start.

[CatalinaWOW]

After seeing the recommendations for Virtualbox several times I finally bit and tried it.  I've had several issues, but Google has resulted in quick fixes for all of them and I am quite satisfied with the result.  W98, WXP, W10 and Linux all under the same roof.   The ability to freeze the machine state is really useful.  Now can switch back and forth between operating systems without waiting for the seemingly interminable boot process to finish.  If you haven't tried it yet it is worth a look. 

[Ampera]

Some of the two best hypervisors in the world, Xen and KVM, are both opensource/free. Wouldn't suggest for a beginner user, but if you need a reliable and high power hypervisor, they are two very good options.

[ebclr]

Vmware is quite superior, and no MOQ

[nctnico]

Vmware is quite superior, and no MOQ

I agree but the license to run multiple VMs on one computer is quite expensive compared to using Virtualbox for free. Virtualbox may have changed their license but until they got the 3D accelleration figured out they can't really charge any money for their software. Or to put it differently: if Virtualbox is going to nag me to pay and/or needs a license locked to my machine I'll move to VMware in a heartbeat.

[soldar]

After seeing the recommendations for Virtualbox several times I finally bit and tried it.  I've had several issues, but Google has resulted in quick fixes for all of them and I am quite satisfied with the result.  W98, WXP, W10 and Linux all under the same roof.   The ability to freeze the machine state is really useful.  Now can switch back and forth between operating systems without waiting for the seemingly interminable boot process to finish.  If you haven't tried it yet it is worth a look.

I take it I can install VirtualBox in my Linux Mint machine and run WIN XP SP3 inside VirtualBox?

How does this work? I install VB and then install Win XP inside VB? Do I need a win XP license?

If I decide to do it I might start a thread.

[Bicurico]

You install VirtualBox.

Then you run it and can create virtual machines. Consider them virtual computers!
You configure them, selecting how many CPU cores you want to assign, how much memory, what kind of virtual video graphics card (2D or 3D, how much memory, etc.) and many other configurations.
The first thing you are asked when creating a new virtual machine: what will be the operating system you are going to install? This will pre-configure the machine: up to a point you don't HAVE to configure anything I mention in the previous sentence.

Then you insert a real CD/DVD or a virtual CD/DVD (an ISO, of course) into the virtual machine and start it. It will run a BIOS and then run whatever installer is on the CD/DVD/ISO.

And yes, you will need a serial key to activate Windows. I just learned that MAC users get a free Windows license for Bootcamp or Virtual Machines. Also, on Windows Professional, you can use Microsoft's own virttualisation to run a virtual machine with Windows.

Other than that, I think you can run Windows 10 for 30 days without activating it.

If you alreadhy have/had Windows installed on your computer, you should be entitled to use this license inside a virtual machine.

Regards,
Vitor

[techman-001]

After seeing the recommendations for Virtualbox several times I finally bit and tried it.  I've had several issues, but Google has resulted in quick fixes for all of them and I am quite satisfied with the result.  W98, WXP, W10 and Linux all under the same roof.   The ability to freeze the machine state is really useful.  Now can switch back and forth between operating systems without waiting for the seemingly interminable boot process to finish.  If you haven't tried it yet it is worth a look.

I take it I can install VirtualBox in my Linux Mint machine and run WIN XP SP3 inside VirtualBox?

How does this work? I install VB and then install Win XP inside VB? Do I need a win XP license?

If I decide to do it I might start a thread.

Yes, you can run Virtualbox, you can also run KVM which is fully opensource with no restrictions and very advanced. If you use KVM you may also want to install 'Virtualmanager' which is a advanced GUI to configure it.

Windows was NEVER free, is not free now, and will never be, so yes, you do need a license. Scrape a Windows license of a old XP box and stick it on your Linux machine to protect you from the Microsoft controlled licensing police in your country.

However you'll be unpleasantly surprised after running a modern Linux because XP is ancient, limited and unsupported. XP is really showing its age.

[gmb42]

Also, on Windows Professional, you can use Microsoft's own virttualisation to run a virtual machine with Windows.

Yes, Hyper-V is free to use as an optional feature, you can use whatever you like as a Guest OS, e.g. Linux, Windows Desktop or Server, but see below for Windows OS's.

If you alreadhy have/had Windows installed on your computer, you should be entitled to use this license inside a virtual machine.

I don't believe this is the case unless you have a Windows Desktop licence with Software Assurance or a VDA licence.  See the licencing gobbledegook at: https://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/d/98d6a56c-4d79-40f4-8462-da3ecba2dc2c/licensing_windows_desktop_os_for_virtual_machines.pdf

[legacy]

KVM

About that, we are collecting vblogs here. The last video is very interesting, although it's only applicable on x86 hardware, and specifically to x86 hardware with hypervisor support.

[james_s]

I think they are just probing for the max they can push.
If the community responds badly enough, they will not to stupid things.

This is not going to end up well, and I think they will take a step back sooner or later.

I wish I could say that I agree with you there, but unfortunately I think the majority of consumers are the proverbial sheep that just take what they are given and put up with it. They are used to this lack of control by now, especially kids who have grown up with mobile devices that automatically update as the manufacture sees fit. Most people who buy a computer just use whatever it comes with, they might moan about companies doing this or that, but they are not bothered enough to actually do something about it. Clearly companies like MS know this.

[Black Phoenix]

I wish I could say that I agree with you there, but unfortunately I think the majority of consumers are the proverbial sheep that just take what they are given and put up with it. They are used to this lack of control by now, especially kids who have grown up with mobile devices that automatically update as the manufacture sees fit. Most people who buy a computer just use whatever it comes with, they might moan about companies doing this or that, but they are not bothered enough to actually do something about it. Clearly companies like MS know this.

Add that to the lack of interest of learning a new OS when you already used the same one for years and years, plus the lack of attention span of the new generation, cause of the social networking and other media, and we reach to this crossroad where there are no will to change.

Of course it could also be applied to other learning environments or everything that is totally different of what users are used to. It takes will and time to learn a new skill set and most people are not into that, being for lack of time or having a different way of using their own time or very small will to.

I talked by myself, I was exactly like that for some years and now I'm trying to catch up in this race although I've been already lapped a lot of times. It turns into an endurance race, and not everyone is up to it.

[legacy]

One of my friend wrote

The quality of all NetBSD and OpenBSD ports has gone down. m68k, PPC, MIPS, HPPA it's all crap. People do not like retro Unix hardware the same way they used to in the 1990s and 2000s, I guess due to the blasted Raspberry Pie.

Retro Unix is dead, Computing is dead.
Because modern things killed all the true creativity.

[Jeroen3]

According to the license you're not allowed to run Windows in any virtual machine unless it's Windows Server.
But there are preactivated XP and 7 iso's around that will never complain about not being activated. Ideal for VM's, especially the XP Lite modified isos.
Windows 10 eliminated this problem, and now people have to resort to KMS type hacks that might suddenly stop working after an update.

Anyway those unfortunate with linux incompatible devices (*** nvidia) can install best experience w10 without any internet. Setup refuses this at first, but you can still do it.
And then in audit mode run this: https://gist.github.com/gvlx/b4d4c5681900ca965276fc5c16fe8520

Windows 7 will deploy nagware in a VM if you have it report the actual CPU.

Linux Mint is surprisingly easy to use. If you don't have any nvidia hardware.

[BravoV]

I think they are just probing for the max they can push.
If the community responds badly enough, they will not to stupid things.

This is not going to end up well, and I think they will take a step back sooner or later.

Well, things are getting worst now, its like you're cursed just because you're born at the other wrong side of the pond. 

-> Adobe is cutting off users in Venezuela due to US sanctions

I guess one day, near future, someone that is totally innocent and just another ordinary citizen, doing nothing with politic nor allegiance with any political power, will find out the hard way and out of the blue that his/her computer suddenly stopped working and with clear political sign wall paper at the monitor.

[BravoV]

Linux Mint is surprisingly easy to use. If you don't have any nvidia hardware.

Why is that ? Mind elaborate further ?

[Jeroen3]

Linux Mint is surprisingly easy to use. If you don't have any nvidia hardware.

Why is that ? Mind elaborate further ?

I found that not all variants of nvidia graphics cards support the official nvidia driver. While googling I also found many other problems with nvidia. I tested both my MSI 660 and 1060, both didn't work. The basic effects in xfce caused kernel panics.

So I regret buying an Ryzen without graphics, perhaps when budgets is there I will retry with newer AMD cards.

[BravoV]

Linux Mint is surprisingly easy to use. If you don't have any nvidia hardware.

Why is that ? Mind elaborate further ?

I found that not all variants of nvidia graphics cards support the official nvidia driver. While googling I also found many other problems with nvidia. I tested both my MSI 660 and 1060, both didn't work. The basic effects in xfce caused kernel panics.

So I regret buying an Ryzen without graphics, perhaps when budgets is there I will retry with newer AMD cards.

Ok, noted and thanks. 

Luckily all my GPU are AMD's, for some weird reasons, I always had bad luck with nVidia cards, they broke down all the time on me once it crossed the warranty period, and that was about 7 or 8 years ago  , so when I decided to switch to AMD Radeon, even the oldest 8 years old AMD GPU card are still working fine today. Currently running on RX580 at my main rig.

[legacy]

eh, guys ... a dude has recently needed to use his LA to find the reason why PCI Radeon 7000 video card has never worked with Linux on a HPPA workstation.

A hack to work around this is work in progress just right now, but ... I wonder why computer must be so shitty, and with "shitty" I mean: what has he just found wrong? That yet again, a company didn't respect the PCI spec 

A video card is not a complex amount of circuits, it's just a stupid device which is supposed to accept commands and data on a stupid BAR and properly operate to show something on a screen, or (in case of our modern GPUs) to give back to the CPU all the computed chunks of data.

WTF?!?! It's DMA, it's a couple of BAR, ok there is a cache in the middle, but ...

So, WTF is the reason for making these damn things so complex and horribly made in a way that *WE* have to spend hours and hours at reverse engineering / fixing / workarounding stuff?


Linux, Windows ... all garbage, because the hardware is garbage, because companies are still prone to do business on garbage.


This is the problem!

[Jeroen3]

That part works fine. It’s the actual coprocessor that accelerates 3D and video codecs that doesn’t.

[rsjsouza]

Vmware is quite superior, and no MOQ

Big fan here. I have been a user of Vmware for about ten years now and I found out it is still the one that, although not perfect, better interacts with weird hardware (JTAG debuggers, unusual pods, etc. ).

The ability to completely lock network access from legacy OSes is perfect (but that is applicable to any VM)

[legacy]

That part works fine

Only on PeeeeCeeees, and only due to the support offered by the BIOS, which has PCIBIOS extension to manage the shit made by those companies who didn't respect the PCI spec.

On PowerPC, Power9, MIPS, and HPPA machines: any Radeon card has never worked.