Creating a Dual-Boot Windows XP and Ubuntu Laptop
|
|
|
Comments (5)
haw, mono-boot. Good one. :)
"Running a Windows-only laptop is hardly ideal for people who do considerable work in the Linux environment."
However, running a GNU/Linux-only laptop is likely ideal for people who do considerable work in the Linux "environment".
Dual-boot (also more appropriately called "duel boot" by some) with anything MS is usually a finicky compromise that some folks have to tolerate. All sorts of aggravation and anxiety just melts away when you cease fighting MS for control of your computer. Linux gives it back to you.
However, running a GNU/Linux-only laptop is likely ideal for people who do considerable work in the Linux "environment".
Dual-boot (also more appropriately called "duel boot" by some) with anything MS is usually a finicky compromise that some folks have to tolerate. All sorts of aggravation and anxiety just melts away when you cease fighting MS for control of your computer. Linux gives it back to you.
Confuciun say: "Man with single boot get blister on foot." :)
I would love to mono-boot my laptop, but my work requires that other OS. :(
I would love to mono-boot my laptop, but my work requires that other OS. :(
Nodough:
Wouldn't it be nice if requirements were based on tasks instead of brands of tools? That would let the person doing the work, or at least someone in contact with those who do the work, choose the tool that did it best. ('Best' to include vendor lock-in potential, long-term cost including security and downtime, AND ease of use by the person actually doing the work).
I fought an email battle with some 'officials' in my stupid state's government, some years ago. They were specifying Microsoft products for every bid proposal for software. They finally agreed that it was discriminatory and began specifying the tasks that needed to be accomplished by the software. I don't know if they've reverted since then.
Wouldn't it be nice if requirements were based on tasks instead of brands of tools? That would let the person doing the work, or at least someone in contact with those who do the work, choose the tool that did it best. ('Best' to include vendor lock-in potential, long-term cost including security and downtime, AND ease of use by the person actually doing the work).
I fought an email battle with some 'officials' in my stupid state's government, some years ago. They were specifying Microsoft products for every bid proposal for software. They finally agreed that it was discriminatory and began specifying the tasks that needed to be accomplished by the software. I don't know if they've reverted since then.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post


Then again I know my way around GNU/Linux and I have been blissfully free of MS Windows since 2001. Windows is an existing evil when I run into it at work or on the machine of my BF.