Frustrating first experience w/Linux

mickeycoronadomickeycoronado Member Posts: 71 ■■□□□□□□□□
So I came to the conclusion that it is absolutely ridiculous I haven't messed with Linux ever and I have a Linux Administration class in the future. I decided to get Ubuntu. How sad is it that I spent 3 hours trying to install a driver for my wireless card with a read me file explaining how to do it, with a laptop next to me and Google fired up. I was determined to get it done using only a jump drive and the terminal. I didn't want to connect a hardwire connection to search for drivers because I'm trying to break my habit of relying on that stuff all the time.

Seriously 3 hours? And nothing to show? What the? I'm gonna figure this bastard out if it kills me.


-MickeyC
"Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory?!"
«1

Comments

  • Met44Met44 Member Posts: 194
    Wireless can be a pain even for experienced users. The manufacturer and user base makes a big difference. Atheros cards are a pretty sure thing thanks to madwifi.
    I'm gonna figure this bastard out if it kills me.
    Good on you. But don't feel bad to move to something else and revisit the wireless card later. If you're dead, you'll never get to use vim!
  • mickeycoronadomickeycoronado Member Posts: 71 ■■□□□□□□□□
    Met44 wrote: »
    Wireless can be a pain even for experienced users. The manufacturer and user base makes a big difference. Atheros cards are a pretty sure thing thanks to madwifi.

    Good on you. But don't feel bad to move to something else and revisit the wireless card later. If you're dead, you'll never get to use vim!

    Thank you Sir icon_thumright.gif
    "Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory?!"
  • mikedisd2mikedisd2 Member Posts: 1,096 ■■■■■□□□□□
    Seriously 3 hours? And nothing to show? What the? I'm gonna figure this bastard out if it kills me.

    Good on yer, just keep at it. I had some real trouble getting wireless to function and stay functioning. And this was with the Ubuntu version designed for my very laptop (Asus Eee 9", no extra drivers needed).
  • Chris:/*Chris:/* Member Posts: 658 ■■■■■■■■□□
    Well you sure picked a difficult topic (relative) to start working in Linux. I know a number of very experienced Linux/Unix admins that hate working with Wireless drivers for Linux.

    That being said typically they are not working on Ubuntu and with a hardware product they did not suggest.

    Don't feel bad keep pluggin and you will look back on this and smile when you start configuring Sendmail servers.
    Degrees:
    M.S. Information Security and Assurance
    B.S. Computer Science - Summa Cum Laude
    A.A.S. Electronic Systems Technology
  • hypnotoadhypnotoad Banned Posts: 915
    Hardware support has always sucked in Linux, and it probably always will. I've been in and out of linux since 1999, and every year they say that hardware support will be better.

    They also claim that "this will be the year of linux!! we will beat MS!!" and it never is. That's been going on for about 11 years or so.
  • ehndeehnde Member Posts: 1,103
    Wireless cards and video cards usually perform better on linux after they're at least a year old.
    Climb a mountain, tell no one.
  • stuh84stuh84 Member Posts: 503
    hypnotoad wrote: »
    Hardware support has always sucked in Linux, and it probably always will. I've been in and out of linux since 1999, and every year they say that hardware support will be better.

    They also claim that "this will be the year of linux!! we will beat MS!!" and it never is. That's been going on for about 11 years or so.

    To be honest, it has got a lot better. Firing up Ubuntu now compared to firing it up 4 years ago is a night and day difference. I spent 6 months getting wireless working on Ubuntu 6.04, now its enabled by default on all the hardware I've put it on recently.

    As far as the "we will beat MS" argument, that tends to come more from the users than the developers/companies funding the distros in my experience.

    I'd still go for Linux on a new server over MS any day of the week, as for what I need from one, Linux does a better job in my opinion than MS does. Both have their place though.
    Work In Progress: CCIE R&S Written

    CCIE Progress - Hours reading - 15, hours labbing - 1
  • TheSuperRuskiTheSuperRuski Member Posts: 240
    stuh84 wrote: »
    I'd still go for Linux on a new server over MS any day of the week, as for what I need from one, Linux does a better job in my opinion than MS does. Both have their place though.

    What exactly do you use a Linux server for that makes it better than MS server? I have never used Linux but would like to get my hands dirty in the not to soon future. I always thought it was just a user issue. Kind of like MAC vs. PC.
    [CENTER][FONT=Fixedsys][SIZE=4][COLOR=red][I]Величина бандит ... Ваша сеть моя детская площадка [/I][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
    
  • Forsaken_GAForsaken_GA Member Posts: 4,024
    hypnotoad wrote: »
    Hardware support has always sucked in Linux, and it probably always will. I've been in and out of linux since 1999, and every year they say that hardware support will be better.

    They also claim that "this will be the year of linux!! we will beat MS!!" and it never is. That's been going on for about 11 years or so.

    It's not really fair to say hardware support for Linux has sucked. For a very long time, it was practically non-existant. Alot of manufacturer's had no interest in supplying drivers or even information so other people could write drivers, so those drivers had to be reverse engineered. That takes time, and often isn't a pretty process.

    Things are *MUCH* better these days. A number of manufacturers opened up their codebase so the community could do their own developement, and a few manufacturer's at the very least started supplying binary blobs so the hardware could work without the need for reverse engineering or the use of software like ndiswrapper
  • Bl8ckr0uterBl8ckr0uter Inactive Imported Users Posts: 5,031 ■■■■■■■■□□
    hypnotoad wrote: »
    Hardware support has always sucked in Linux, and it probably always will. I've been in and out of linux since 1999, and every year they say that hardware support will be better.

    I have been using ubuntu for about a year and as my main OS for two months and I have had no issues with any hardware right out of the box.
  • varelgvarelg Banned Posts: 790
    So I came to the conclusion that it is absolutely ridiculous I haven't messed with Linux ever and I have a Linux Administration class in the future. I decided to get Ubuntu. How sad is it that I spent 3 hours trying to install a driver for my wireless card with a read me file explaining how to do it, with a laptop next to me and Google fired up. I was determined to get it done using only a jump drive and the terminal. I didn't want to connect a hardwire connection to search for drivers because I'm trying to break my habit of relying on that stuff all the time.

    Seriously 3 hours? And nothing to show? What the? I'm gonna figure this bastard out if it kills me.


    -MickeyC
    I would assume you missed the line "check the Hardware Compatibility List for your distro". What the heck, even Windows has its own HCL.
    Further, did the said hardware work while you run LiveCD?
    Why did you undertake this "installation of a wireless driver" anyway? An exercise in installing drivers?
    All is not lost, but you already know that. You could get away with a USB wifi dongle, if the built-in wifi adapter is THAT much non-standard.
    If you think Ubuntu isn't hardware- friendly, wait until you try OpenSolaris.
    And, if you fall for those "win vs. lin" comparisons remember that you are comparing desktop (win) with a server (lin) OS.
  • varelgvarelg Banned Posts: 790
    Kind of like MAC vs. PC.
    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif Really? Mac vs. PC? icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
    Financially, Linux comes into play when Microsoft licencing bills are compared against dwindling IT budget. But in countries where licencing isn't a factor Linux stops being interesting for the bean counter's part of the staff.
  • Daniel333Daniel333 Member Posts: 2,077 ■■■■■■□□□□
    Hey dude,

    Windows has better hardware support. As a matter of fact, most hardware is built for it. Ubuntu does not. Check it's web site for supported hardware. That in mind, if you are just playing around you might want to just run it in Virtual Box for the time being.

    All the hardware I use is supported, so my normal install time for Ubuntu is normally..oh, 25 minutes realistically since 10.10.

    Best of luck,
    -Daniel
  • TheSuperRuskiTheSuperRuski Member Posts: 240
    varelg wrote: »
    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif Really? Mac vs. PC? icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
    Financially, Linux comes into play when Microsoft licencing bills are compared against dwindling IT budget. But in countries where licencing isn't a factor Linux stops being interesting for the bean counter's part of the staff.

    bean counters...lmao...Thanks for the feedback.
    [CENTER][FONT=Fixedsys][SIZE=4][COLOR=red][I]Величина бандит ... Ваша сеть моя детская площадка [/I][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
    
  • TheSuperRuskiTheSuperRuski Member Posts: 240
    Daniel333 wrote: »
    Hey dude,

    Windows has better hardware support. As a matter of fact, most hardware is built for it. Ubuntu does not. Check it's web site for supported hardware. That in mind, if you are just playing around you might want to just run it in Virtual Box for the time being.

    All the hardware I use is supported, so my normal install time for Ubuntu is normally..oh, 25 minutes realistically since 10.10.

    Best of luck,

    I installed Red hat enterprise edition in VMWare but never got a change to mess around with it. I will have to do more research as to the differences because linux is a different language to me.

    Good luck on your CCNP studies.
    [CENTER][FONT=Fixedsys][SIZE=4][COLOR=red][I]Величина бандит ... Ваша сеть моя детская площадка [/I][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
    
  • stuh84stuh84 Member Posts: 503
    What exactly do you use a Linux server for that makes it better than MS server? I have never used Linux but would like to get my hands dirty in the not to soon future. I always thought it was just a user issue. Kind of like MAC vs. PC.

    For remote management, being able to SSH in to the command line is fantastic. I don't know if its changed with Powershell, but before that you had to run RDP as far as I know, which takes up a lot more bandwidth than SSH.

    For web servers, my personal preference is Apache, I've never liked IIS. I know you can do WAMP now as well as LAMP, but Apache is still developed more for Linux than MS.

    Command line tools like tshark (CLI version of Wireshark) are fantastic on Linux, and a lot of the things like tcpdump are built in and have been for years.

    MS definitely has the edge when it comes to Active Directory, very well integrated, and Exchange is definitely an awesome mail server, but I much prefer Linux for practically anything else.

    I always look at Linux being modular compare to MS. Have a problem with a process? Restart the process and then troubleshoot as required. MS? In my experience if one process is screwed, it takes many, or all with it.
    Work In Progress: CCIE R&S Written

    CCIE Progress - Hours reading - 15, hours labbing - 1
  • Daniel333Daniel333 Member Posts: 2,077 ■■■■■■□□□□
    What exactly do you use a Linux server for that makes it better than MS server? I have never used Linux but would like to get my hands dirty in the not to soon future.

    Personally I don't believe in better or worse. It's just one tool is better adapted for the situation over another. As a Geek and a capitalist, I enjoy playing with everything.

    I can share my companies philosophy here, but your millage is going to vary...

    My experience with Linux has been almost the opposite of what you might think. I have found smaller more broke companies need Windows and larger companies with more money need Linux.

    I work in the SOHO/SMB market for 90% of my time. And when things are said and done the network needs to be maintained by Heald graduate kids and out sourced Indian IT. That being said Linux is normally not even an option for us. Just teaching these kids to use SSH is a challenge. We simply don't have the hours to train then. And we don't have the budget to get Linux experienced techs.

    Just look at what Small Business Server 2008 can offer a small shop? It's really hard to beat.

    But we do have medium/larger clients. Where suddenly up-time is a huge issue. So multipurposing of servers is not preferred. So we find we can snag a old $100 dell 2650 server and use it for an FTP server. Or $400 Dell server with Squid makes a great proxy. Tools like ESXi/XenServer make this even easier. We can leverage their old hardware or use old hardware of our own to get our profitability up with the client and keep their costs down.

    Smaller business units in larger companies don't always have the same needs as the company as a whole. So you find you can move a marketing team to Macintosh and Ubuntu File servers without impacting the larger group. You just can't do that in a smaller company.

    Obviously this isn't true of every situation but our management has been burned a few too many times in the past.

    I just want to make one last point. Linux is going to end up in your environments somehow. If it's the management OS on a SAN, a load balancer, ESXi or your Droid devices. It's finds a way. Just remember to keep your support model in mind as you make the decisions. Long term profitability is the goal for everyone, not new toys.
    -Daniel
  • Chris:/*Chris:/* Member Posts: 658 ■■■■■■■■□□
    What exactly do you use a Linux server for that makes it better than MS server? I have never used Linux but would like to get my hands dirty in the not to soon future. I always thought it was just a user issue. Kind of like MAC vs. PC.

    It is not better just different. Most custom applications run on Linux servers because they are more stable and efficient. I find Active Directory easier to use than any of the other versions of LDAP though. Most SMTP servers in the world are some form of Linux and Unix again because of stability. It depends what you are trying to do that will determine which system you want to run. You can do practically everything with one or the other but each one does things "Better" than the other.
    Degrees:
    M.S. Information Security and Assurance
    B.S. Computer Science - Summa Cum Laude
    A.A.S. Electronic Systems Technology
  • MentholMooseMentholMoose Senior Member Member Posts: 1,524 ■■■■■■■■□□
    Chris:/* wrote: »
    Well you sure picked a difficult topic (relative) to start working in Linux.
    I agree with this. Additionally, chances are if you manage to get it working, the next time you install a kernel update it will be broken again, which will be extra frustrating. I suggest getting help on an Ubuntu forum or IRC channel, to get it fixed properly the first time.

    From you post, it sounds like you are trying to handle the driver issue the Windows way. In Windows, for every device that doesn't work out of the box, you have to figure out the device manufacturer (or in many cases the manufacturer of the chip on a rebranded device), find their website, download the driver, then try to install it. In most cases, all this hassle will eventually work.

    In Linux, you rarely have to do this, and virtually never should. Most hardware should just work, out of the box. The Linux kernel itself includes most drivers, and distributions will also install common drivers by default. If it doesn't, you should look for a driver, but one provided by the distribution, not the device manufacturer. It will be in the form of a package in the distribution's package repository. You can use the built-in package manager to find and install it with a few clicks.
    MentholMoose
    LFCE - MCITP: EDA7, VA, SA, EA - MCSA:S 2003 - CCA (PVS 5, XD 3 / 4 / 5, XS 5 / 6) - VCP 4 / 5
  • mickeycoronadomickeycoronado Member Posts: 71 ■■□□□□□□□□
    ehnde wrote: »
    Wireless cards and video cards usually perform better on linux after they're at least a year old.
    Like a good cheese or something?
    varelg wrote: »
    I would assume you missed the line "check the Hardware Compatibility List for your distro". What the heck, even Windows has its own HCL.
    Further, did the said hardware work while you run LiveCD?
    Why did you undertake this "installation of a wireless driver" anyway? An exercise in installing drivers?
    All is not lost, but you already know that. You could get away with a USB wifi dongle, if the built-in wifi adapter is THAT much non-standard.
    If you think Ubuntu isn't hardware- friendly, wait until you try OpenSolaris.
    And, if you fall for those "win vs. lin" comparisons remember that you are comparing desktop (win) with a server (lin) OS.
    I think it has more to do with the fact that I have no idea what the hell I’m doing with the drivers, or Linux at all for that matter. The hardware never worked from what I remember. It was literally the first thing I did after getting the boot order straight. I tried this right off the bat because it is my lab computer for school and I need the internet running for Linux up in my school “office”. The cable for my internet connection is snaked into my basement (after many months of bad service I realized that this connection had a much better signal.)

    Anyways I don’t want to drill through two floors to get a wired connection up there, hence my wireless card (which came with my school equipment). I did some searching and found two driver packages that supposedly should get the card up and running. I threw them on my jump drive and that’s how I’m working with it right now.

    I don’t fall for any competition per say. I’d love to learn all platforms honestly. I mean what is best for one thing isn’t nessecarily the best for another. Why not just throw them all on your drives and experiment?
    Daniel333 wrote: »
    Hey dude,

    Windows has better hardware support. As a matter of fact, most hardware is built for it. Ubuntu does not. Check it's web site for supported hardware. That in mind, if you are just playing around you might want to just run it in Virtual Box for the time being.

    All the hardware I use is supported, so my normal install time for Ubuntu is normally..oh, 25 minutes realistically since 10.10.

    Best of luck,
    Thanks for the tips!
    I installed Red hat enterprise edition in VMWare but never got a change to mess around with it. I will have to do more research as to the differences because linux is a different language to me.

    Good luck on your CCNP studies.
    Thanks I need it! (if that was for me.)
    I agree with this. Additionally, chances are if you manage to get it working, the next time you install a kernel update it will be broken again, which will be extra frustrating. I suggest getting help on an Ubuntu forum or IRC channel, to get it fixed properly the first time.

    From you post, it sounds like you are trying to handle the driver issue the Windows way. In Windows, for every device that doesn't work out of the box, you have to figure out the device manufacturer (or in many cases the manufacturer of the chip on a rebranded device), find their website, download the driver, then try to install it. In most cases, all this hassle will eventually work.

    In Linux, you rarely have to do this, and virtually never should. Most hardware should just work, out of the box. The Linux kernel itself includes most drivers, and distributions will also install common drivers by default. If it doesn't, you should look for a driver, but one provided by the distribution, not the device manufacturer. It will be in the form of a package in the distribution's package repository. You can use the built-in package manager to find and install it with a few clicks.
    Great stuff thanks, it will help me approach it from a better angle tonight. I figured I had to have an active connection to utilize the packet manager/repository stuff. Yeah, the windows approach is hard to break. I have many bad habits I’m trying to break, not working in the CLI enough, restricting myself to Windows, and I’m in the process of teaching myself the correct way to type (I type fast enough but it is in my own self taught way and I believe I could be more efficient).

    -MickeyC

    P.S. I suppose I could run some line up the side of my house and snake it through the coaxial cable hole, but it is icy and cold as balls outside right now.

    Follow up: Spent a lot more time on that damn wireless card. Still no luck. I ended up trying to take the easy route by hopefully getting it to install with Ndiswrapper but that only opened up a floodgate of new problems. Can't even get that to install from the disk. I keep getting "ndiswrapper module cannot be found" errors. Spent many hours scouring threads. Very burnt. Maybe a little more reading tomorrow. Not encouraged.
    "Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory?!"
  • it_consultantit_consultant Member Posts: 1,903
    I've been of the mindset that linux / unix really shines in appliance type devices where the manufacturer has complete control of the hardware that ships with the device, which negates the possibility of driver issues. I haven't seen a scenario where, for regular LAN tasks, a linux box is noticeably better than windows. Having said that, I wish MS would give up Windows CALs to make my life easier as a purveyor of MS technologies.

    I respect that fact that when I buy a firewall I am paying for something I could probably develop for free with open source tools. I like not having to worry about it and being a phone call away from genius level support.
  • Forsaken_GAForsaken_GA Member Posts: 4,024
    Daniel333 wrote: »
    Hey dude,

    Windows has better hardware support. As a matter of fact, most hardware is built for it. Ubuntu does not. Check it's web site for supported hardware. That in mind, if you are just playing around you might want to just run it in Virtual Box for the time being.

    All the hardware I use is supported, so my normal install time for Ubuntu is normally..oh, 25 minutes realistically since 10.10.

    Best of luck,

    Windows has better hardware support for some things, those things being video cards, sound cards, and up until recently, wireless cards. Unix has always been pretty well supported on server grade hardware.

    So those shouldn't really be any surprise. Unix has never really been much of a desktop platform, and honestly, still isn't. Ubuntu has made incredible strides in that area however, and it supports ALOT more hardware out of the box than most other distros. I remember the first time I installed Ubuntu on a box I was previously running Debian on, and due to the Debian fanaticism about software licensing, I had to jump through some serious hoops to get all my hardware working properly. With Ubuntu, it just worked. It was wonderful!

    And again, the major reason that the unix variants have fallen behind in some areas of consumer level hardware is because of the hardware manufacturers themselves. Alot of manufacturers simply refused to release any information on their hardware, so it all had to be reverse engineered.

    But companies have become wiser about that these days. You will see drivers for Linux and Windows quite often as compared to five years ago, where you'd only find windows. Software vendors are also picking things up - you will quite often see versions for Windows, Mac, and Linux these days. And then there's the entire smartphone market.

    Windows isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It will continue to maintain absolutely incredibly market share for a very long time. But the world is changing, and people are willing to accept solutions that do not come out of Redmond, WA, especially with the price tag associated with it. The same thing is happening in the network world with Cisco. Like any other market, the various facets of IT are maturing, and the players involved that are used to writing their own blank checks are going to learn what every market eventually learns - adapt or die.
  • TheSuperRuskiTheSuperRuski Member Posts: 240
    The same thing is happening in the network world with Cisco.

    So who is Cisco's Apple?
    [CENTER][FONT=Fixedsys][SIZE=4][COLOR=red][I]Величина бандит ... Ваша сеть моя детская площадка [/I][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
    
  • Forsaken_GAForsaken_GA Member Posts: 4,024
    So who is Cisco's Apple?

    Juniper, Force10 and HP lately, though rather than selling competing products at a high margin, they tend to undercut Cisco on price for similar products.
  • N2ITN2IT Inactive Imported Users Posts: 7,483 ■■■■■■■■■■
    So who is Cisco's Apple?

    Juniper
  • TheSuperRuskiTheSuperRuski Member Posts: 240
    I've seen a Juniper router...once. And I've never heard of Force10 but searched there hardware on ebay and came back with 9gs minimum price lol It looked like some pretty serious hardware though. And I've only seen HP routers and the home level. I have to do more research on the subject.

    How much different would it be to work on one of those? Anybody have?
    [CENTER][FONT=Fixedsys][SIZE=4][COLOR=red][I]Величина бандит ... Ваша сеть моя детская площадка [/I][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
    
  • Forsaken_GAForsaken_GA Member Posts: 4,024
    I've seen a Juniper router...once. And I've never heard of Force10 but searched there hardware on ebay and came back with 9gs minimum price lol It looked like some pretty serious hardware though. And I've only seen HP routers and the home level. I have to do more research on the subject.

    How much different would it be to work on one of those? Anybody have?

    JunOS is much more Unixy

    FTOS (force10) has a few differences, but mimics IOS as close as possible. force10 isn't stupid, they know there's a horde of cisco trained people out there, so they made their OS as close to Cisco's as possible to take advantage of that.

    HP's revamped lines aren't bad. and it pains me to say that. Still wouldn't buy their gear unless forced to by management however.
  • mickeycoronadomickeycoronado Member Posts: 71 ■■□□□□□□□□
    Since Ubunto recognizes my non-wireless network cards, I think maybe I'll try and setup some kind of wireless bridge with a wireless router I have. Do you think it is possible to configure the wireless router to pick up the signal of my main wireless router, thus relaying the signal through an ethernet cord to my upstairs computer? I realize I would have to disable the router capabilities of my upstairs router and do a bunch of configuration stuff to get it to work but, is it worth a shot?

    I don't need this long term, just long enough to get an internet connection to Ubuntu to get everything configured properly.

    Maybe I can intergrate this into my next assignment, which requires connecting two computers via a switch (which I have two of at the moment). Maybe I can try and setup the most complicated home network I can just for fun. But Christ I need to get the wireless card going as well.

    (yes I realize there are several forum posts about this on the net. I'm just throwing it out there.)

    Also, do you guys know if there is a way to capitalize a few letters in my screen name without having to create a new account? I feel like a little kid...
    "Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory?!"
  • SlowhandSlowhand MCSE: Cloud Platform and Infrastructure, MCSA: Windows Server 2003/2012/2016, CCNA Routing & Switchi Bay Area, CaliforniaMod Posts: 5,161 Mod
    So who is Cisco's Apple?

    I could argue that the "Apple" of networking devices is SonicWall. They target primarily SMBs and have a very, VERY user-friendly interface on a fairly powerful set of devices. If we're going to further the "Microsoft = Cisco" analogy, I'd say that Juniper is more akin to Red Hat Linux: a more open platform with similar enterprise support and training options as its more mainstream counterpart. . . and Foundry switches are the equivalent of Solaris. icon_lol.gif

    Free Microsoft Training: Microsoft Learn
    Free PowerShell Resources: Top PowerShell Blogs
    Free DevOps/Azure Resources: Visual Studio Dev Essentials

    Let it never be said that I didn't do the very least I could do.
  • Chris:/*Chris:/* Member Posts: 658 ■■■■■■■■□□
    Yes you can create a repeater out of specific wireless routers that have the hardware capability. It is not suggested to do this because you are effectively halving your bandwidth for the targets that are receiving the repeated frames.

    Universal Wireless Repeater - DD-WRT Wiki
    Degrees:
    M.S. Information Security and Assurance
    B.S. Computer Science - Summa Cum Laude
    A.A.S. Electronic Systems Technology
Sign In or Register to comment.