Powerbasic Museum 2020-B

I've reached a critical juncture in my thinking on this subject.  When does Windows become too much of a good thing?  My thought was when it became XP, with its elaborate efforts to protect Microsoft's profits by its registration and validation process.  So I stayed with Windows 2000 Pro instead of upgrading.

So how do you think I feel about Vista?  Now I didn't really object to XP, as long as Microsoft continued to support 2K and XP, and really didn't object to the step to get rid of Windows 9x/Me because they weren't true multitasking systems, and were holding a lot of improved development back as developers sought to stay in the mainstream as much as possible.

And I certanly do not object to the idea of a more secure OS, if one can be built.  But the glits and funky features promised for Vista, along with the massive hardware upgrades needed to run it, sounded ominous to me.

Some years ago, I began to distrust the weight that Ziff-Davis publications put behind the Microsoft OS, which was instrumental in turning the world away from IBM's OS/2 and other alternatives.  Ziff-Davis publications added a lot of clout to what Microsoft could muster, and helped make Microsoft the single vender of the most widely used OS of all time.  But was it really their place to do so?  I began to seriously doubt it.

Linux was there, along with Unix, and there were many people still using some version of DOS.  But by and large, the ZD Pubs, including PC World, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, and many others, only featured Windows and Windows applications.  Then when something really new and capable came along, known as BeOS, it was virtually ignored by those same publications.  Now I know that people that tried BeOS were really impressed about how it got so much better performance out of the PCs of that day, but it was treated with distain by the ZD publications.  Even when the creators released BeOS to the public, so that you could just download it on your PC over the Internt, it failed to attact any favorable press.  I knew then that the bias or fix was in for sure.

Then we start hearing about Vista, and while some writers were cautious in their views, most felt it was way pass time for Microsoft to come out with a major upgrade.  When we started hearing about the major hardware upgrades needed, often mandating buying hew systems, nobody took the position that this is just plain stupid.  It was all about Microsoft and Intel making buckets of new money by selling new systems to us, and the ZD Pubs really did their best to convince all of us that this was our future.

But Vista is bloatware and a dog.  Many promised freatures never even made it into the package, and their idea of added security is to ask us, "Are you sure?"
before it will perform some operations.  Meanwhile you give up compatability with many existing applications, which means a lot of rebuys, upgrades, more money spent, and the aggrivation of solving all those problems.  Meanwhile the ZD Writers admit to a few problems, but are sure that given time, a few updates will make everything right.  Meanwhile, aren't the new looks really impressive, and which version of Vista should you set your sights on?

Sure, I'm being purposefully negative about Vista, but I really resent the hype and unfettered enthusiasm that ZD Pubs and others lavished on it, and still do in many cases.

So I found it interesting that the current issues of a couple of ZD Pubs are demonstrating what I would have to describe as an "editorial shift" away from Vista.  It disappoints, and finally somebody is speaking out and saying so.
The current issue of PC Magazine even talks up the option of moving to Linux in place (or in addition to) working with Vista.

I seriously doubt that I will (meaning I really do not intend to EVER) make the move to Vista.  And if Microsoft carries out its threat to discontinue its support of XP (which would mean 2K as well), then I can only plan to move to another OS,  So the question is, which version of Linux?  Now I wish that BeOS was still a real option, but while it has some fanatics still committed to it, I doubt that there are enough parties envolved to really revive it.

But let's hear what other people think.  What I do know though, is that as long as PowerBasic is locked into Windows, then its future and mine are not going to continue to be entertwined.  Since it currently meets my needs, I'm already discounting the idea of further upgrades, simply because it looks like my time left with Windows will be limited.  There are competing products that I can use under Linux, and in fact I already have access to these.  One is PureBasic, which I own through a fortuous purchase, and the other is FreeBasic, which costs nothing.

Here is a survey of Linux Desktops - Ubuntu is the most popular with about 1/3 of the market:

http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/survey/survey.cgi?view=archive&id=0821200617613

Linux Desktops are now serious competition for Microsoft. We can only hpoe this will have a beneficial effect in constraining MS's monopolistic tendencies.

Working under Linux is very nice and I do at least half my coding there, but there is so much to learn. Fortunately most of Windows conventions: keyboard control etc are the same, so using applications is easy - but for developers there is a different engine under the bonnet.

What GUI toolkit are you using with Linux Charles, if you don't mind my asking?  Some time ago I installed Ubuntu (6.1 I believe) and managed to get the X software dev stuff installed, and I played with X some.  It is in my opinion very, very, very different from Win32 Api.  For example, no concept even vaguely resembling a Window Class and Window Procedure specific to that class.  I hope to get back to learning Linux some later this year, but I'm not sure what toolkit to adopt.  From what little exploration of the topic I did I wasn't able to find anything like the windows Api, which I love.  Everything I checked out looked a lot like PowerBASIC DDT, which doesn't do much for me.

How's this idea?  Years ago Coke did a major recipe change with Coke.  Remember that?  The uproar was so tremendous Coke had to come out with 'Classic Coke'.  Maybe Microsoft can come up with a 'Classic Windows' (something like 2000/XP) for people not wanting Vista.  And that would be me.

My programming in Linux (Mandriva) is in Freebasic, mostly console based, but some Opengl, so I have not had to deal with xWindows directly yet. I am really still a novice - getting aquainted with a new set of terminal commands is enough. But my approach to the GUI side is to make use of cross-platform libraries such as SDL and Opengl, learning what I can from good examples.

Your experience of Linux seems well ahead of mine Fred.

From what I have read, instead of writing for one api like windows or x, you read about using wxwidgets or QT as they allow your program to be crossplatform and not dependent on any one api. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(toolkit)

I feel as you guys do pretty much. The more I read about Vista, the more I am convinced unless a miracle happens it is not for me. I am thinking of running XP as my game computer and slowly make the switch to linux in the coming year.

Also the more I think and look at things, .net and java are the wrong way to go. Look at all the .net and java installations in add and remove programs from the control panel. I think it is better to write once but compile many times for the platforms you want. That will offer the most freedom and less reliance on one company and their way of doing things.

I hope powerbasic offers a linux version, it would make it really nice. In the meantime you guys running linux at the moment might want to check out this basic:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Coding-languages-Compilers/KBasic.shtml

I have not tried it as I am trying to focus on thinBasic and powerBasic at the time. It would be neat to hear your guys thoughts about it if you try it out.

kbasic website:

http://www.kbasic.org

Looks very promising QB and VB compatible for Windows,Linux and Mac.  but not much on their forum yet.

I have successfully installed Ubuntu before on my notebook with it supporting my wireless card, but in making the move to Linux, I want to make sure I move to a good all around version. I looked up Linux books in my local libraries catalog and there are plenty of generic Linux books. The only named Linux they have any books for are for Red Hat.

I did a search on Amazon Books, and you see books for Red Hat number one, Ubuntu second, a Suse and Fedora Core books I saw and one for Damn Small Linux. This is just in the first few pages of results, they had a huge return of results so I am sure a book must exist for some of the other ones as well. Also on forums, it seems Slackware Linux is very popular too.

Anyways,I found this cool site that tests you to see which Linux might be best for you. Thought it might be fun and beneficial to forum members to check it out.
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/

For users of Freespire and Linspire there is a site where you can get automated installation, using a FireFox plugin, from a huge collection of applications:

Click'n Run

www.cnr.com

This service should be available to Ubuntu7,Debian, Fedora and OpenSuse users soon. The site seems to run a bit sluggishly - I hope they will have sufficient bandwidth to cope with the demand.

Thanks Charles, an interesting and useful link.

Follow up on the which linux test. I took the test numerous ways last night and made a scoring system. I just answered slightly differently on a question here or there, but pretty much followed what could apply to me. Here are the results:
OpenSuse and Mandravia tied and Ubuntu came in second. OpenSuse came in first in 3 tests and Mandravia in 2 tests. Ubuntu never came up first surprisingly in these tests.

The very very first time I took the test yesterday before the multi-tests, Ubuntu came up first.

This one was outside of the test, just to see what be the choices.
I answered not truthfully, but as a very hardcore Linux user might, two distros came up. 1 Gentoo and 2 Slackware

My overall rating of that test is that, wow it seems to find what you are looking for if you are not sure. I know Ubuntu works and would be more than enough for me, but something in me kept nagging me about it and it turns out the test offered two other distros over it. I was impressed, now to see if I can get them running :)

Since there has been some mention of the various distributions of Linux, I thought I would mention one of the "live" distributions, the one I first read about in one of John Divorak's columns.  It is call Knoppix after the guy that put it together.
Here are some related links:

http://www.knoppix.net/
http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/knoppix_intro

The term "live" means that the distribution is designed to boot up from the image that you create on CD or DVD, so you do not have to actually install it on your hard drive.  This has the advantage of letting you test drive it before you think about actually installing it on your system.  Everything you need is included in the image file that you download.  the downside is that running from a CD or even a DVD disk does not give you a real feel for the performance that you can milk out of Linux.  And of course even with the 700 MB allowed on a CD-R disk, the distribution is slightly limited.  Still, it's a good start.

I also decided to see what might be sturring in the BeOS camp.  I never delved into it to any extent, but I read that it was not dissemular from Linux, and that there were a couple of books put out for migrating stuff from Linux or Unix over to BeOS.  Well, it turns out that BeOS has now become the Haiku OS, and is still under development.  Here are some links related to it as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS
http://www.bebits.com/app/2680
http://haiku-os.org/
http://haiku-os.org/about

Attempting to create a new operating system, like BEOs or Haiku may be a mistake, given the huge investment of the software community in Windows/Linux/Mac applications. Anything that introduces further compatibility barriers is unlikely to be welcomed. However, using the cross-platform libraries, (such as those for which Jose has produced PB headers)  it is possuble to have a system that breaks the OS boundaries while providing all the functionality needed for the job.

Perhaps a new super-operating system will emerge from a collection of these libraries. Something less complex than the present platform-dependent offerings.

WINE of one of a number of projects to permit Windows-based applications to run on alternate operating systems.  Efforts to increase the level of compatability are ongoing.  I quote one source:

"Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X, OpenGL, and Unix.

"Think of Wine as a compatibility layer for running Windows programs. Wine does not require Microsoft Windows, as it is a completely free alternative implementation of the Windows API consisting of 100% non-Microsoft code, however Wine can optionally use native Windows DLLs if they are available. Wine provides both a development toolkit for porting Windows source code to Unix as well as a program loader, allowing many unmodified Windows programs to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and Solaris.

"More information can be read in the articles Why Wine is so important, and Debunking Wine Myths. If you are wondering how well a particular application works in Wine, please examine the Applications Database. For installation instructions and step-by-step help with running Wine, take a look at the User Guide.

"Wine is free software. The licensing terms are the GNU Lesser General Public License."

http://www.winehq.org/

If WINE works as intended, then the documentation on using WINE in your own applications should consist of available Windows API literature.  But I've seen no one yet claim to be able to run and build applications using PB/Win up to this point, or even PB/CC under Linux.  All discussions found have centered around using the PB/DOS versionm and using DOSEMU (DOS Emulator) rather than WINE.

Now I haven't messed with any of this myself, but I wonder what would happen if an effort were made to first install WINE under Linux, then to run the IDE or some other editor typically used for creating source code.  I imagine it might work.  Then to call the powerbasic compiler to see if it will compile the code.  That might work as well.  And if the program compiles, depending upon what Windows API calls it uses, it might also execute under Linuix.  But this is just a guess.  If there is any real difficulty, I would suspect that it would be in terms of using the Debugger.  I would guess that the API calls for using the Debugger would not be fully implemented under Linux.  But it might be interesting to see what would happen without engaging the debuggerr.

The interesting thing, is that as WINE is supplied for a number of operating systems, you might end up being able to continue developing software to run in the Windows emulator, meaning that you and your clients may be able to forego continued adoption of Microsoft Windows versions in place of existing ones.

The other question would be just how much of the so-called Windows API calls have been emulated at this point?  Updates and revisions are on-going, so what does not work today may indeed work a month, or a year from now.  But the APIs are actually a series of documented, externally accessable functions and subs that appear in numerous DLLS that are included in Windows.  To use them, you need a DECLARE statement that identifies both the library, and the function or sub by name  Technically, a developer may call other libraries and functions or subs that he/she knows exists within the Windows environment, but which might not be emulated or available outside of Windows.

I think the big thing that can change everything is Apple. They have their OS working on intel machines, they have boot camp, let's you run windows apps, if Apple ever sold their OS not bound to hardware by them, that could change the world quickly. The OS is a linux distro underneath with that awesome interface and of course many hardware drivers exist for it.

I played with ubuntu, openSuse and Mandriva this weekend. They are all viable options, it is just a matter of getting your hardware to work, and that is not linux's fault, but hardware manufacturers not providing drivers. I sort of try out linux every 6 months to see what is happening, and each time you see more and more progress and it getting easier to install and use. It is not there yet, but you can see big improvements. I am pretty sure by the time XP is no longer supported that linux by the major distros at least will be good enough to go with instead of Vista.

I was surprised but I did like openSuse and Mandriva more than ubuntu this go around. And of the three I really liked Mandriva. But in the end I did reinstall XP, I like XP and will use it as long as it is supported.

But it feels good to know Vista can't be forced upon me and options will be there when the time comes!!

As if we don't have enough choices, there is also Mimix 3:
http://www.minix3.org/
http://www.minix3.org/download/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX_3
http://haiku-os.org/about
http://www.minix3.org/
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Minix_3/Minix_3_on_Bochs

I also found mention of Mimix 3.1 on a website last night, so apparently it is moving right along.

There is a newer release of Knoppix out there, dated January 2007.  I decided to redownload it and take a look.  This is version 5.1.0, and it has had a face lift.  Actually, it really looks cool, and booted up nicely.  I even found I could use my USB/RF mouse with it without any problems.

I guess I will set aside some hard drive space and play with it a bit.  It comes with Wine, which can be configured right from the KDE desktop menu.  But I will probably redownload that off the internet as well, to make sure I get the latest and greatest.  Then I will se what happens when I try to access PB/CC under it.

When the KDE desktop starts up, it also automatically mounts your hard drives and provides icons for them,  It also gives you access to two web browsers from the toolbar, and the K-button (where Window's Start button lives) gives you quick access to many other programs and tools, including the OpenOffice software already included in the CD image.

This is a CD image that I downloaded.  It is available from numerous sources, including some univerisities here in the U.S.  Just an easy download, but a big one, so you really need a high speed connection.  You can buy any distribution on CD or DVD if you look for it.  Because they are using compression on the CD, they claim that they have upwards to 2 GB of actual content on the CD.  It decompresses automatically on the fly, and probably gives you faster access from the CD than you would get if uncompressed.

When you find Knoppix, you will probably see a large number of files listed.  There are just three things you need to know in picking the right one.  The date the distro was put together is included in the name, so go for the most recent.  And the DE or EN or whatever refers to the language being used on bootup (you can change this later after the boot is complete).  DE refers to german, EN refers to english, FR would be french, and so on.  The extension .ICO means it is a burnable image.  I used Nero to create the CD from the downloaded file, but if you don't have any burning software, you can find suitable programs by searching the Internet.  You will likely see other files with similar names but different extensions.  You can ignore them.  The large file with the .ico extension is the only one needed.

Most PCs will boot from the CD or DVD drive if you have a bootable disk there when it is powered on or rebooted.  If not, you may have to use your PC Setup options to specify booting from CD/DVD drive before booting from the hard drive.  Just rebooting without a boot image in the CD/DVD drive should cause it to boot from the hard drive as it did before.

There are some useful sites that specifically focus on the Knoppix distribution.  The Knoppix distribution is in turn based on the Debian distribution, which has been around for awhile.  And the Linux Kernal is the foundation for all Linux distributions, with a choice of supporting and additional packages out there to give each distribution its own distinctive flavor.  You can also install multiple versions of Linux on the same machine if it suits you to do so, along with DOS and various flavors of Windows.

What makes Linux something of a challenge today is not that it is severely limited, but that it is exactly the opposite.  You buy a Windows PC, and you get a small range of trial and vender-supplied products.  People then usually have to buy products specific to their need or interests, paying for each, and learning each in turn.  But Linux distributions are so extensive, that it can be daunting to face all at once the many things to learn and do with them.

By providing a desktop, such as KDE, configured to resemble Windows, you can quickly find common ground with a modern Linux distribution like Knoppix.  There are also many good books to help, including some that take those that know DOS, giving them similar command line actions in Linux.

One thing that might come hard to new users is the determination of which shell they want to employ in Linux.  Know the command line prompt that DOS
gives you, or that you get when you use the RUN command from Windows?  That is your introduction to the command level capabilities of DOS, or the DOS emmulation that later versions of Windows supply.  But in Linux, there are a number of different shells available, and it's your choice which one to use.  How to choose is often based on what you've heard or read, and you will generally find that authors of books on Linux often only cover one version in their text.   
For instance, you can get a Linux for Dummies book that covers several different Linux distributions, including Knippix, or you can get one that covers just Debian for Dummies.  So you can either chose to learn to do the same thing five or six different ways, or possibly learn more by focusing on just one version.

Here are a few related links:
http://www.ilearnlinux.com/Debian/index.html?gclid=CO6s5rfFrY4CFSBMGgodtAu0ZA
http://www.amazon.com/Debian-Linux-Dummies-Michael-Bellomo/dp/0764507133
http://www.theosfiles.com/os_linux/ospg_Linux_debian.htm

Well just by going through the links so far you can see that linux is a really neat OS. Its time as mainstream is coming too. It has history, that is time has proven it a success if you take unix as the parent. It is known for its stability and incredible wide range of choices it offers. It just needs drivers and those will be coming. I am sure Dell and Acer will be pushing manufactures to start making drivers, well I already read DELL has started to ask for them.

Good luck with your test with Wine and the various PB compilers!

In searching for a suitable driver for my Canon Pixma IP6000D Printer, I found that Canon USA does not supply these, but there is hope with Canon Japan.  To date the biggest complaint I noted that many people have voiced about any version of Linux is the lack of suitable drivers.  Several people have settled on a driver for a different model that gave them some functionality, some have bought new hardware that included Linux drivers from the vender, and some apparently decided that it was too much hassle, and reverted to Windows.  A few may have gone onto a virtual machine setup to give them the best of all worlds.

One guy said it best, when he said that if you are contemplating a move to Linux in your future, then you should be buying your hardware now with that prospect in mind.  He now buys hardware that can be used either way, and if the vender does not offer drivers openly, he searches to see if someone solved the problem online before he commits and buys.

In noted in passing that Microsoft is not the only one that has changed its model of how drivers tie into the system, Apple has done the same thing for its OS, so finding compatable drivers for use there is a bit of a challenge as well.

There is a company that is stepping up to the challenge,  They market Turboprint for Linux, a software solution that covers many different makes and models.  http://www.turboprint.de/english.html,  It costs roughly $39 U.S.

Several Linux distributions are designed to automate or simplify the prospect of adding new packages to your Linux install.  Red Hat uses what is perhaps the best known, which is the Red Hat Package Manager, or RPM.  Actually, RPM has been adopted for use by other distributions as well, but not all employ it.  This is a qute from one web site:

Quote
RPM is a core component of many Linux distributions, such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the Fedora Project, SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, CentOS, Mandriva Linux, and many others. It is also used on many other operating systems as well, and the RPM format is part of the Linux Standard Base.

This could be an important factor in deciding what distribution you want to start with, as the convenience of having a simplified way to perform changes would benefit the novice the most.

Other Linux distributions might support the Debian DEB model instead.  I found an article on how to convert an RPM package to a DEB package, which might be handly, since you tend to run into RPM more often.

Here is another quoted message, and some links that might be of use:

Quote
I've found a useful website which teaches you how to create Debian .deb files, an application package that has been used by various GNU/Linux distribution including Ubuntu, Knoppix, SimplyMEPIS, Linspire, Xandros and Debian GNU/Linux itself.

Hope that this information will be useful to you : Basic_Debian_Packaging

Other relatively useful website : HowToBuildDebianPackagesFromScratch

http://blog.mypapit.net/2006/06/tutorial-how-to-create-debian-deb-package.html
Links at bottom of page:
    * Howto create a simple Debian/Ubuntu Repository
    * Create your own Debian/Ubuntu (*.deb) package
    * Installing Java 2 SDK on Debian GNU/Linux and Ubuntu
    * How to Compile Pocket PC PDA Application on Linux

http://www.linuxdocs.org/HOWTOs/RPM-for-Unix-HOWTO-8.html
http://www.hispafuentes.com/hf-doc/HOWTOs/Linux-html-HOWTOs-20021014/HOWTO/RPM-for-Unix-HOWTO.html
http://ubuntuos.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/install-rpm-files-on-debian-and-ubuntu/

    * When Microsoft write about GNU/Linux-related tutorial
    * Unofficial apt-get Repositories for Ubuntu Dapper 6.06
    * Gaim-vv - Gaim with Webcam and Voice support

Here is a brief survey of information from the Internet about live Linux versions,
and even an article or two on creating your own live version from a permanent one installed on your hard drive:

http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LiveCDs
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/9569/Linux-LiveCD-Roundup/
http://distrowatch.com/
http://www.linux-live.org/

I was finally happy to check out Haiku as linked earlier by Donald. There is a very exciting tech talk on google video about it and its features and what they are aiming for.
I was so happy when I had heard of Beos, the idea and vision was ahead of its time. I am so glad these guys have put so many man hours and 7 million lines of code to bring us Haiku soon.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=236331448076587879

Back in the 90's when I first started to look at Linux, I remember I was running a 200mhz computer and Beos was the best running distro I had used at the time. Reading about writing programs for Beos, it was a comman factor in almost all of them that the authors always talked about what a pleasant OS it was to develop for and in.  Anyways I think this is very exciting news!!

As I mentioned earlier, it would seem obvious that if there are drivers available for hardware that worik in Windows, and a lack of drivers for the same hardware in an  alternate OS, then why not encapsulate existing Windows drivers so that they can be loaded and called from some of these alternate OSes?  It's not like it can't be done -- after all, it's all just software, or code if you perfer.

Well, I put a query into Google about non-linux drivers in Linux, and came up with some interesting information:
http://www.technetra.com/writings/recent/ndis_wrapper_wifi_html
Which I quote in part:

Quote
The NDIS Wrapper project aims at bridging this gap by providing a kernel module to load Windows NDIS device drivers for unsupported hardware.
What is NDIS Wrapper?

NDIS Wrapper allows the Linux kernel to interact with a network device using the Microsoft NDIS driver for that device. NDIS Wrapper translates calls to the Windows NT kernel and hardware abstraction layer into native Linux calls. The project was started in November 2003 by the primary developers, Pontus Fuchs and Giridhar Pemmasani.

The Network Device Interface Specification (NDIS) was jointly developed by Microsoft and 3Com in the days of MSDOS to provide a device-driver programming interface allowing multiple network protocols to share the same network device. Before NDIS existed, hardware vendors provided proprietary drivers for their devices, creating interoperability issues for users.
Using NDIS Wrapper

Getting started with NDIS Wrapper is fairly straightforward. First, you have to install the unsupported network device in your Linux system. Next, download the NDIS Wrapper source package from the project's homepage at ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net. If you are not using a custom kernel, you may be able to save time by using one of the precompiled NDIS Wrapper binary packages that are available for Red Hat and Debian (NDIS Wrapper is provided as part of Mandrakelinux 10). However, if you are using a custom kernel, you will need to have the source tree available for that kernel to compile NDIS Wrapper.

Once you have downloaded the source or binary NDIS Wrapper package, you will need to get the Windows driver for your network device. Generally, it comes on a CD with your hardware; otherwise you will need to download it from the vendor s website. Now that you have both NDIS Wrapper and the Windows drivers, we can get started with the installation. Just follow these steps:
Compile and install

Unpack the source package...

$ tar xzvf ndiswrapper-0.8-rc2.tar.gz
$ cd ndiswrapper-0.8-rc2

Login as "root"...

$ make install

Verify installation of kernel module...

$ ls -l /lib/modules/`uname -r`/misc/
-rw-r r  1 root root 1342995 Jun 1 17:52 ndiswrapper.ko

Verify the installation of user space utilities...

$ whereis ndiswrapper loadndisdriver wlan_radio_averatec_5110hx
ndiswrapper: /usr/sbin/ndiswrapper
loadndisdriver: /sbin/loadndisdriver
wlan_radio_averatec_5110hx: /usr/sbin/wlan_radio_averatec_5110hx

Install Windows driver

Unpack the Windows driver package...

$ unzip wmp54g_driver_utility_v1.3.zip

Install the driver...

$ ndiswrapper -i BCMWL5.INF
Installing bcmwl5
(Note: This will also create the directory: /etc/ndiswrapper)

Verify the installation of the Windows driver...

$ ndiswrapper -l
Installed ndis drivers:
bcmwl5    present

Enable the wireless network interface

Load the NDIS Wrapper kernel module...

$ modprobe ndiswrapper

Verify device recognition by NDIS Wrapper...

$ dmesg
ndiswrapper version 0.8-rc2 loaded ndiswrapper adding bcmwl5.sys
divert: allocating divert_blk for wlan0
wlan0: ndiswrapper ethernet device 00:0c:41:65:8f:f9   using driver bcmwl5.sys

Verify network configuration...

$ iwconfig
lo     no wireless extensions.
eth0   no wireless extensions.
wlan0  IEEE 802.11g ESSID:""
       Mode:Managed Frequency:2.462GHz
       Access Point: FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
       Bit Rate:54Mb/s Tx-Power:16 dBm
       RTS thr:2347 B Fragment thr:2346 B
       Encryption key:off
       Power Management:off
       Link Quality:100/100 Signal level:-10 dBm Noise level:-256 dBm
       Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
       Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:122 Missed beacon:0

Set up automatic detection of the wireless device at system boot...

$ ndiswrapper -m
Adding "alias wlan0 ndiswrapper" to /etc/modprobe.conf

Configure the wireless network interface in Fedora

Before you configure the network interface, you will need to know the service set identifier (SSID) and the mode (Ad-hoc, Managed) of your wireless network. If you don t have this information available, take a look at the configuration screens of your wireless access point.

Create the wlan0 configuration file using your favourite text editor...

$ vi /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-wlan0

Add the following lines to the file
(lines in red will vary according to your configuration)...

# NDIS Wrapper Configuration: Linksys WMP54G
DEVICE=wlan0
ONBOOT=yes
BOOTPROTO=static
TYPE=Wireless
MODE=Managed
ESSID="marin"
CHANNEL=11
IPADDR=192.168.0.210
DOMAIN=private.dom
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
GATEWAY=192.168.0.1
USERCTL=no
PEERDNS=no
IPV6INIT=
RATE=Auto
HWADDR=00:0C:41:65:8F:F9

Save the file and use the "System Settings" -> "Network" control panel to activate the interface
Verify wireless connectivity

$ iwconfig wlan0
wlan0  IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"marin"  Nickname: owl.private.dom
       Mode:Managed Frequency:2.462GHz
       Access Point: 00:0F:66:51:06:70
       Bit Rate=54Mb/s
       Encryption key:off
       Link Quality:0/100 Signal level:-47 dBm Noise level:-256 dBm
       Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
       Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0

$ ifconfig wlan0
wlan0  Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0C:41:65:8F:F9
       inet addr:192.168.0.210 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
       inet6 addr: fe80::200:0c41:fe65:8ff9/64 Scope:Link
       UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
       RX packets:1558941 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
       TX packets:825302 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
       collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
       RX bytes:2305901954 (2199.0 Mb) TX bytes:143025599 (136.3 Mb)
       Interrupt:11 Memory:de000000-de00ffff

Try to ping www.google.com...

$ ping -c 1 www.google.com
PING www.google.akadns.net (216.239.57.99) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 216.239.57.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=240 time=29.6 ms

--- www.google.akadns.net ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 29.622/29.622/29.622/0.000 ms, pipe 2

Finally, surf the Web...
Conclusion

As Linux gains popularity on the desktop, my hope is that hardware vendors will make a better effort to support their customers by releasing native device drivers. Meanwhile, we should thank the developers behind NDIS Wrapper for a job well done!

© Technetra. First published July 2004 in LinuxForYou magazine (www.linuxforu.com).

Okay, this may seem to go a long way towards closing the lack of Linux drivers issue.  But actually, NDIS is only concerned with Network cards, both wired and wireless.  There have been relatively few efforts to support other hardware devices, such as printers, scanners, fax machines, multipuroise devices, Winmodems, gaming devices, and video cards, sound cards, and so on.  Some categories of devices may be getting more help in terms of native Linux drivers than others -- for instance, many video cards are supported with available drivers for Linux, but on the other extreme few printers, scanners, or multifunction devices have any. 

But indirectly, this example also exposes another problem that is going to annoy a lot of people.  And that is that a modern version of Windows supports Plug 'N' Play (PNP), where Microsoft has figured out an elaborate series of tests that usually detect and install the proper drivers for new devices, assuming that they have all been certitied by Microsoft to work with its OS.  PNP is not apparent on systems that come already set up, except that it will recognize the printer, scanner, digital camera, or other device you might add to the system.  Where PNP breaks down is usually that older equipment may no longer be supported, or a vender may have quit supplying driver updates for equipment that is no longer sold.  You may also find a vender that has not had their devices or drivers certifited by Microsoft, so you are forced to run the installation software to get the driver to install.

Ever notice that Windows does not automatically remove drivers for devices that are no longer attached or used with your PC?  The driver remains installed, which simplifies matters if you reattach the same or similar device in the future.  But it is a manual process to actually remove drivers in cases where you do not intend to use that device again.

It appears that the state of the art with Linux is all about manual device management and a search for suitable drivers, unless a vender goes the extra mile and simplifies the process.  But why should they, when the demand for Linux support is so exceedingly small at present.

It's another chicken or egg problem.  I suspect that the number of total Linux users will have to grow substantially, and that a lot of continuing efforts to enhance Linux further will be necessary to bridge the remaining gap between what people are accustomed to under Windows, and will be disappointed by when they try Linux.  But continuing hands-on experience and searchable links on the Internet will do a lot to help.

Probably like some of you, I've had more than my share of helping family and friends keep their PCs reasonably clean and backed up, and have had to spend many hours overcoming problems when they get into trouble.  When people begin to make the move to Linux, are you going to be there to help, or are you going to be just about as lost as they will be?  I was telling my nephew that if he takes on Linux now, then by the time others are ready for it, he will be to,
to guide and assist.  There might even be a future in it.

There are people who go readily to the command line to do things, and many who never have or never will.  Efforts to make Linux more Windows-like have helped gain acceptance, but possibly at the cost of really getting the most out of the operating system and your PC.

There are things easily done from a command line prompt that are hard, if not impossible through the GUI interface you find in Windows.  Want an example?  Try to verify that all the files in directory A exactly match the files in directory B, or that any older versions in directory B are automatically updated from the contents of directory A.  Another example:  Try to append text file Bravo to the end of text file Able.  These are trivial tasks for anyone who has familiarized themselves with some of the features and utilities of DOS.

What we call the command prompt is more correctly known as the command interpreter.  If you ever use Windows, and have been told to use Start/Run and then type "cmd", you are telling the operating system to start a program by the name of cmd.exe, which is an updated Windows version of the old DOS command interpreter.  Cmd.exe gives you a command prompt, and then either
recognizes and responds to a select group of known commands, or searches for an executable file with the name given and calls it, passing any given command line parameters to it during the process.  A simple mechanism, but with powerful connotations.

So if you are contemplating a move to Linux, and you have already come to understand some of the advantages and power of using a command interpreter, then you probably already know that you won't be entirely happy trying to live within any GUI interface, because you need that added power when the GUI mode just doesn't cut it.

In the Unix and Linux worlds, command interpreters are more generally called Shells.  And there is not just one, as with DOS, but several.  You could even say "many".  Actually, there are several DOS ones, as DOS workalikes have their own version, and Windows provides the cmd.exe one, but the differences between them are generally minor, and we tend to think that there is only one.

Linux shells are not all alike.  They have evolved over time.  But rather than making you get off an older version, they just add new ones from time to time,
and these are picked up by the different distributions.  So you have a choice.

Of the mumerous shells available for Linux today, the most common one is likely BASH.  So it is a good one to focus on, and with many distributions, it is the default shell associated with user accounts.  So you may be looking at BASH when you first encounter your command prompt.

It's time for some links on Linux Shells.  I've grabbed these from a Google search on the topic:
http://penguin.dcs.bbk.ac.uk/academic/unix/linux/shells/index.php
http://icrontic.com/articles/ultimate_newbie_guide_gnulinux_shell
http://www.freeos.com/guides/lsst/
http://lowfatlinux.com/linux-learning.html
http://www.arachnoid.com/linux/shell_programming.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/

Why is BASH so popular?  Well, it came later, and it borrowed most of the best features from the others.  As someone might say, what's not to like?  By picking a specific shell to learn, you make your life easier.  But note that if a different shell does something that yours doesn't, it is even possible to activate an alternate shell for just that one command, then continue on in the shell of your choice.

I'd tend to suggest that you get a few reference books if you are serious about making the move to Linux.  At least one that is specific to the Linux distribution that appeals to you most, another that covers Linux in more depth, and one that focuses on getting things done in Linux, which would likely cover the shell, some programming tools, networking, and other broad topics.

You can certainly focus on learning everything you need to know by using the free information on the Internet, but it is not as structured, and a nice book can give you something to be reading at those odd times when a computer is not at hand,

Okay, let's say that you feel the tug or lure to try something else at this point, but you are still hesitant.  You want this experience to be as painless as possible, and not to risk anything that you currently have working or saved.  So the very first thing to do is to back up your complete system.  My suggestion for doing this is an external hard drive and suitable software.  Some may prefer burning some CD-Rs or DVD disks, but I think a spare hard drive is the better way to go.  With backup or archival software, such as True Image or Ghost, compression means creating an image that is only a fraction of the original hard drive's space requirements, so you can make multiple backups over time.

Secure in the knowledge that you can resotre your PC to its present state, you can now consider what you want to do next.  If you have played with a live or demo version of Linux, you can choose that, and in most cases, you can find instructions on line for installing that distribution to a hard drive, even creating the necessary drive partitions on the fly from available hard drive space.  Most often, you do this by downsizing available partitions to free up spaces, but you may elect to install another hard drive specific for this use.  You have to decide how you control the boot process as well.  The typical method is a multi-boot
program that gives you choice on boot up.  Another approach is to regulate the boot based on the presence of a floppy disk or CD in the respective drive.

If you buy a book on Linux, say one of the For Dummies series, these generally come with their own Linux distribution on CD.  These will give you the simplest approach to using or installing the provided software.  They also usually give you sites for obtaining updates and participating in online discussions.  But if you are a personally assured individual, you can locate and download your own choice of a distribution.  My best advice is to anticipate your questions, and print off instructions from the Internet before you commit too far, as this is easier with your current setup than to wait until you get stuck down the road.

But let's say you just simply are not ready to cut the knot to Windows, that you have too much invested there, and that you are enticed rather by the idea of having your one PC able to work with each OS independently by what is generally referred to as a Virtualization process.  Is this a good way to go or not?

The Virtual Machine (VM) approach is not confined to one solution.  I found a web page where a number of products are all compared.  Not all these are current, and not all are equally suited.  In fact the presence of so much information (some of it quite brief or limited), makes a general evaluation somewhat difficult.  But there are three columns near the center of the resulting graph that are colored.  Red, meaning No, or Green, Meaning Yes, shows three critical areas that may related to suitability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_machines

If you see a product that interests you, you may want to check it out in more detail elsewhere.  This link does not answer questions about availability or possible pricing.

There is a possible downside to the VM approach.  That is that it means even more code for your PC to be running, so one can readily guess that going this route could mean a slow PC becoming even slower, particularly if it has limited amounts or RAM, and a PC with limited hard drive space will likely become even more cramped.

In particular, I would look for comments by users about their experience with given products before deciding to commit to one,  Parallel has made a name for itself by providing Windows and Mac OS on the same machine, but do you want its Windows/Linux solution for about $50?  They offer a 15-day trial, but that's lost time if you decide not to buy later.  Still, you could use it as a base line when comparing results with it with other choices. 

Here is a useful link that tells you how to begin with a free copy of VMWare
Player and install the Ubuntu Linux distribution.  These same instructions should work well for other Linux distributions as well.
http://stahlforce.com/dev/index.php?tool=vmlinux

Here is another descriptive process that uses the free VMWare Server software instead:
http://cmsproducer.com/Ubuntu-Linux-Windows-VMware-Server


Note that I am running Windows 2000 Pro with SP4+, and when I tried the method involving VMWare Player, I kept getting a install process interrupted message, and could not get it to work.  But when I switched to the second method, of using VMWare Server, everything went smoothly.  It installed, put an icon on the desktop, and when I clicked on that, I was able to create a new virtual machine and boot up the Knoppix image off the CD.  It was a bit jerky as far as the mouse was concerned, but then I only have a 1.23 GHz PC with 1 GB of RAM, which is a little light on speed and memory for a job like this.  After it finished booting up the guest system, the mouse movement smoothed out.

If you are using an older version of Windows as your host or primary operating system, you may run into some problems with installing VMWare, sort of like I did.  But you still have a number of options.  First, you can check out the particular VM package and see if it supports your version of Windows as the primary or host OS.  Not having checked them all out myself, I did note that Parallel's offering makes this claim:
http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/

Quote
Supported OSes
Primary OS Support

Multiple Windows operating systems:

    * Windows Vista Home Basic
    * Windows Vista Home Premium
    * Windows Vista Business
    * Windows Vista Enterprise
    * Windows Vista Ultimate
    * Windows 2003 Standard Edition SP0, SP1
    * Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP0, SP1
    * Windows 2003 Web Edition SP0, SP1
    * Windows XP Professional Edition SP2
    * Windows XP Home Edition SP2
    * Windows 2000 Professional Edition SP4
    * Windows 2000 Server SP4


NOTE: In case of a Windows primary OS you must have Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher installed.

Multiple Linux operating systems:

    * Fedora Core Linux 4 stock 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4
    * Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS4 stock 2.6.9-5
    * Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS4 stock 2.6.9-5
    * Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES4 stock 2.6.9-5
    * Red Hat Linux 9 stock 2.4.20-8
    * Debian Linux 3.1 stock 2.6.8-2-386
    * SUSE Linux 10.0 stock 2.6.13-15
    * SUSE Linux 9.3 2.6.11.4-20a
    * SUSE Linux 9.2 stock 2.6.8-24.11
    * SUSE Linux 9.1 stock 2.6.4-52
    * Mandriva Linux 10 stock 2.6.3-7
    * Xandros Linux 4.0


NOTE: If using a Linux primary OS, the following software packages must be installed:

    * Sources of currently installed kernel (if you did not install the kernel manually, then you should install kernel-sources package from your distribution);
    * glibc [glibc]
    * gcc [gcc] (included in any development package)
    * X Window system including:
          o xf86vidmode extension (for fullscreen only)
          o XKB extension (for keyboard national layouts and leds support)
    * QT 3.0.5 library multithreaded [qt3]



Guest OS Support

Multiple Windows operating systems:

    * Windows Vista Business
    * Windows Vista Enterprise
    * Windows Vista Ultimate
    * Windows 2003 Standard Edition SP0, SP1
    * Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP0, SP1
    * Windows 2003 Web Edition SP0, SP1
    * Windows XP Professional SP0, SP1, SP2
    * Windows XP Home SP0, SP1, SP2
    * Windows 2000 Professional Edition SP4
    * Windows 2000 Server SP4
    * Windows 2000 Advanced Sever SP4
    * Windows NT Workstation 4.0 SP6
    * Windows NT Server 4.0 SP6
    * Windows ME
    * Windows 98
    * Windows 95
    * Windows 3.11
    * Windows 3.1


Multiple Linux operating systems:

    * Fedora Core Linux 3, 4
    * Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS3, WS4
    * Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS4
    * Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES3, ES4
    * Redhat Linux 7.3, 8, 9
    * Debian Linux 3.1
    * SUSE Linux 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3
    * Mandriva Linux 9.2, 10, 10.1
    * Xandros Linux 4.0


FreeBSD:

    * FreeBSD 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 5.4


Multiple operating systems from the OS/2 and eComStation family:

    * OS/2 warp 3, 4, 4.5
    * eComStation 1.1, 1.2


Sun Solaris:

    * Sun Solaris 9, 10


MS-DOS:

    * MS-DOS 6.22

Now looking at this list, you might wonder how this information helps you,  Well, you will see your Windows or DOS OS supported as a GUEST OS, even if it cannot be used as a primary.  So if you create a dual boot system with one of the Linux distributions, and install the needed packages, you can boot into Linux, then use VM to run your Windows or DOS environment as a guest.

But do you have to buy and use Parallel's software?  Perhaps not.  When you get to the web pages where you can register and download VMWare, you also have access to the versions for Linux, which you can download in place of or as well as the versions for Windows.

Thanks Donald nice article and info. Here is a link to the excellent podcast and this particular episode is about virtual machines, a good listen as are all the other ones at this site:
http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#50

Episode 50 is about virtual machines.

Also I saw a news cast on cnet about this new notebook for $150. Here is more info on that, it of course runs on Linux. This could be interesting to see how easy it is to use, could this be the mom and pop computer in the near future at this incredible price?
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cheapest-notebook-in-the-world/medison-celebrity-the-150-laptop-282258.php

The first thing you will encounter as you try to install VMWare Server is that it will tell you that you need to install or start the IIS Service, but it also tells you can do that later and repeat the setup.  So I went ahead without doing that.  IIS is going to be needed if your VMWare server is going to talk to other VMWare servers, and that was not my goal, so I figured I could just come back to that later if needed,

Now remember, this free version is marked 1.03, so it is going to have some rough edges, hardly comparable to the VMWare Workstation version 6 on the market now.  But it doesn't cost $189 either.  And we are just doing a test drive, to see if it works and how it feels.  If you decide you want the real deal, then think about signing up for a course in web page building or something, get a student ID, and use that to get an Academic discount on VMWare.  The $50 or so that you can save might pay the cost of the course, giving you two benefits for one.  Of course you still need to find time to do the course.

The first rough edge I found was managing the way I could install a guest system on my PC.  There were a range of choices, but in picking a Linux distributuion, it had to be installed under VMWare; I could not use one that already resided on my system.  And VMWare set up a 8 GB drive partition for that purpose that appeared as a file under Windows.  So when you are in your VMWare environment and running Linux, you don't have access to any drive partitions other than the pseudo one created just for you.  Nor can you boot to that Linux install later, since it does not appear as a bonefied drive patrition to the rest of the system.  You can only access it via VMWare.

I could share certain devices - the keyboard, mouse, monitor, floppy drive, and CD/DVD, and network connection for instance   But not having a shared partition somewhere of a common type that more than one OS can access means it is difficult to hold any data in common.

In practical terms, Microsoft's approach to drives and partitions are to ignore any drive partition that they did not establish themselves.  Linux is a lot more accomodating, because with the proper driver support installed, they can access many types of drive partitions, even the FAT and NTFS partitions used by Microsoft products.  This apparent weakness on Microsoft's part is probably deliberate; they don't want to encourage anyone to use a competing product.
   
And the VM concept does not cancel this out.  In fact, it carries it further.  Each guest system is kept in a virtual place that protects the rest of the system from being effected by any misbehaving application or fatal error  The merits of this approach are that it provides the famos "sandbox" that protects you from the full consequences of dealing with untested and suspect software.

But let's say that your goal is really to try and use the best of both worlds, Mocrosoft's along with Others, to do your job.  The main advantage of VMWare is that you can have several of these running at once, and switch from one to the other at will. The real disadvantage is that the data is not easily held in common.  You need to consider some method of bridging from one file system to another, which could be by treating each OS as part of a network, where some resources can be shared between different Virtual and real machines.
This is complicated, but not impossible.

VMWare Server 1.03 also showed some other rough edges.  It gives no way to eliminate a VM after you create it, and only rudimentary controls when it came to the initial configuration or later modifications.   You can get the VM version of Linux to exit by telling it to shut down, but VMWare does not end on its own - you have to use the Task Manager to kill it.  To get rid of an old VM configuration, you have to reboot or uninstall VMWare Server, at which point you can delete the entries in the Virtual Machine folder.  But VMWare keeps track of the VM configurations in an inventory, and you will not be able to create a new configuration of the same name.  I couldn't figure out how to get around this limitation.

There is a GOTCHA that can happen with VMWare Server, as least as I installed it without activating IIS.  It works fine the first time you call it after it is installed, but thereafter you might get an error message when you try to start the Local Host that says, "There is an error connecting", giving you an error type 511.  You can get aroiund this problem by using Start/Settings/Control Panel/Administrative Tools/Component Services, then scrolling down to the entry VMWare Registration Service.  It will likely show that it is Automatic, but not Started.  Right click on the entry and tell it to start, and after that you can get access to the Local Host in VMWare.

Working in the VM environment is something of a challenge.  You are trying to use the mouse and keyboard at three different levels:  As part of the host environment, as part of the VM environment, and of course within the scope of the guest system.  The key to doing this generally lies in when to use the keyboard to switch modes, and then using the mouse to set focus.  To switch from focus mode to the larger scheme seems to take a combination of pressing the Ctrl and Alt keys together.  Then you can use the mouse to scroll up and down or left and right in the VM window, or select Home, which takes you back to your VM management options.  To switch back to Windows, as least to bring up the Windows task bar might take a Ctrl and Alt combination, then a Ctrl and Esc combination.  You may not get the Windows desktop though.  However, the first icon beside the Start button will cause the windows desktop to come to the top.

You are also trying to learn to use Linux, and the Knoppix distribution comes with four desktops, which you will see marked on its lower toolbar.  You can use the Alt + F1 through Alt + F4 key combos to go to a command prompt for any of these.  In fact, Alt + F1 should show you the command prompt used during the boot process - just hit return to confirm that you are at the command prompt level there.  To return to the KDE desktop, just use Alt+F5.

Learning just this much has taken quite a few hours, and of course it takes time to write a detailed post as well.  It's well worth playing with this stuff, because you begin to understand how things work best, and define just what you want or expect in the configuration that you are searching for.  A review of products also imparts a flavor to the way each works, and their respective strong and weal points.

Right now I am of a mind that if you began with a Linux or dual boot machine, you are probably ahead of the guy that wants to try and do all this from within Windows.  The reason is simple:  Microsoft does not even try to play nicely with others, so you don't really have access to "foreign" drives, partitions, and files.  But using Linux as your host machine gives you better prospects of getting to other "real" drives and partitions, even if not those hidden in files in  the host OS file system.

Linux is not as greedy with resources, particularly memory, so it is likely that your PC performance will be somewhat better with Linux as the host.  I'm not trying to kick anybody off of Windows, which is why I propose a dual boot machine.  But setting up a dual boot can be a bit difficult, so read up on how to do that first.  If you decide on a dual boot (actually, multiple boot, since the number of system installs is really only limited by the amount of hard drive space for creating partitions), then I would suggest that you download and install the latest and greatest distribution versions, rather than trying to incorporate a Live version off a CD or DVD as a permanent install.  I've found that there is more risk that something will be missing and reported as an error with the Live versions, because they have to be made somewhat lite in order to be squeezed into a single CD image.   If you can't download because you lack a stable, high speed internet connection, then you can usually buy cheap copies from off eBay and other sources.  Just search eBay by distribution name.

Let's say you are still on the brink of making a decision.  We've talked about many elements already, but no clear cut decision is on the horizon.  Our choices seem to be:

Thank you very much for providing all this interesting information Donald.  Where I'm at with Linux is just pretty much starting out.  I've had to take a detour away from it the past couple months, but I'm hoping to get back with it this fall.  Last Spring I spent several months 'in the trenches' with it though, and that's how I made the progress I did.  I put Ubuntu on my best and newest laptop, and made it a dual boot setup with Windows XP.  Boy, I'll tell ya, I sweated it out pretty bad!  I was worried I'd mess it up somehow and not be able to get anything back working!

It all went in pretty good though.  I did have to go through the manual partitioning though.  After I shut Linux down and attempted to restart XP it was clear that ole Billy knew something fishy was going on though behind his back.  XP went through a file system check trying to figure out what was going on, but then XP started and I havn't had any problems with either installation.  I'm pretty happy with the dual boot setup.  The whole VM concept sounds somewhat problematic to me.

Encouraged by my new laptop's experience with Ubuntu I decided to put Ubuntu's lightweight version 'Xubuntu' on my old Compaq Win2000 laptop and I was not that pleased with Xubuntu.  What I did next was kind of unfortunate in that I decided to stick my recovery CD in the old laptop and just reinstall a fresh Win2000 Pro on it eliminating both my original Win 2000 installation, and Xubuntu.  I assumed incorectly that whatever changes GRUB and possibly other boot strapping software had done to my laptop would be nullified and repaired by the recovery CD.  Not so!  By doing what I did I had apparently lost my master boot record and while I may have managed to get a fresh Windows 2000 installation copied to the hard drive, there was no way to get to it!  Let me tell you, I suffered for a number of days till I finally came up with a solution to that problem.  I had some old MSDOS 6.22 disks about and I was able to get that installed on the laptop.  I'm assuming as part of its install it FDISK'ed my laptop's hard drive, thereby repairing the MBR.  At least that's my interpretation.  Anyway, after that I was able to put Win 2000 back on the laptop, and in fact its the one I'm typing on right now.  I looked at that old laptop as expendable till I messed it up!  Then all I could do was think of fixing it!

I don't know if this experience of mine was just a fluke or not, but I kind of suspect that this may be a hidden danger that many people don't realize about these dual boot setups.  I remember about 6-7 years ago when I was first messing around with Linux and PowerQuest's Partition Magic I recall reading in their 'Boot Magic' documentation that these boot sector modification programs that modify the boot record must make a backup, and if the boot loader is uninstalled as part of its uninstallation the original condition of the bood sequencing code must be restored.  And I suspect this is what I had run amuck of.  At this point I have a perfectly functioning dual boot setup with Linux on my good laptop, but I look at it pretty much as dynamite!  The very first thing I do when I get back into Linux in another month or so is do a pile of research on GRUB and the whole issue of bootstrapping.  I simply want to know more about it so I never get caught like I did last Spring.

Not wanting to engage with these complications, I run separate Linux and Windows PCs. They are both connected to the Internet via a 4 port ethernet hub  modem, and I manually bounce files from one machine to the other via a directory on my website. It saves technical hassles and provides a form of remote backup at the same time.

The PCs are about 2 feet away from each other but the files going between them do a trip from Wales to Italy and back, a round trip of bout 2000 miles. Such is technology.

Charles. to complete your setup, why not look for a KVM switch to connect both PCs to the same Keyboard, Monitor, and Mouse?  Then you can simply toggle between the two machines with some keys on the keyboard.  I found mine at TigerDirect, and got a nice modular one with cables for only $26 (plus s/h).  It works very well, and there is no software driver involved, so you can use it with PCs running different OS's.  If one PC is off, the other is automatically enabled, but the toggle is also a quick way to kill the monitor, keyboard, and mouse when you want to leave your PC for awhile.

The KVM switch is super great for me, because I just plug a family or friend's PC in as I set it down near mine, and I'm up and running in a very short time. It is also a quick and easy way to connect a laptop up to a desktop mouse, jeyboard, and monitor and use it alteratively with your desktop, without having to put one down and take up the other.

I also see somewhat more expensive versions that include switching USB as well.  This could be helpful if using any USB devices, like a mouse or keyboard.
Otherwise, you might have to do what I do:  Unplug and replug the mouse USB
to each PC as needed.  Something of a hassle, and has about convinced me to go get a new wired mouse, even though the USB/RF mouse seems to work better.

You can find a few cheeper KVM Switches, but this is the one I ordered, and I like it very much.  Looks like they cut the price by a few dollars as well.

I've been busy cleaning up my brother-in-law's PC for the last two days, and can finally take a break because I now have to wait for a PCI IDE Controller Card I ordered to come it.

So back to the topic at hand.  Here are some more links I found interesting:
http://www.linuxhelp.net/guides/vmware/
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,69849,00.html
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,69849,00.html
http://www.parand.com/say/index.php/2006/03/07/easiest-way-to-get-linux-vmware-ubuntu-image/

I'll be back to expand on this post after I do a bit more searching under some other criteria.

One of the things that interests me now is getting some distribution of Linux back on this PC to use in a dual-boot fashion.  My experience from before is that there are several ways you can accomplish this.  They all involve replacing  he normal boot process with something that provides you with choice.  As it happens, Windows versions since NT (not 9x/Me) use a program called NTLDR (NT Loader) that reads the configuration in a text file called Boot.ini that is found in the C:\ root directory.  Boot.ini can be modified, and often is, to reduce the 30 second pause when booting before using the default setting.  People can shorten the time to 10, 5, or 3 seconds, or even make it 0, which means always use the default.  You can also specify which boot option is the default.  And you can manually make new entries, but they had better be to valid boot choices, or your system will hang, and have to be restarted.

You probably have already heard of GRUP. It is the same general idea for Linux, but people that use GRUB may find it easy or hard, depending upon how familiar they are with how their system's drive partitions are set up.  You will also hear some people say that the order that you install the OS'es makes a difference.
Which is not strickly true, just as long as you don't try to assign them to the same drive partition.

In general, the first partition that DOS or Windows can find is always considered the C: drive. and DOS or Windows will try to boot from that
partition.  If the drive partition is not formatted, or is not formatted as either a FAT16, FAT32, or NTFS partition, Windows will ignore it completely.  Windows
also has a different way of scanning for drive partitions than Linux does, so the drive designations in Linux do not necessarily align to the letter assignments given by Windows.  And since you can change letter assignments used by Windows, it is even less certain what matches up to what.  But don't worry, if you know something about what is stored on each drive, you can sort it all out.

The determination of what gets booted and how is really controlled by the built-in BIOS that each PC has.  Newer BIOS chips may offer multiple boot options, such as adding the ability to boot from CD, DVD, and USB drives.  The BIOS chips are generally plug-in chips, and some people replace them with newer versions that they buy in an effort to increase the flexibility of older PCs.

Anyway, suppose you are starting with a Windows box, and you decide that you are now ready to venture into downloading and installing one of the many Linux distributions.  It really does not matter which one. You've backed up your PC, and you have downloaded (or are about to) the distribution of choice.

Then this article might interest you.  It shows you how you can get the PC to adapt to being a dual-boot method by modifying the Boot.ini file, and the tools that can be used for this purpose.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=87751

Now an interesting thing about Boot.ini is that you can set the comment field alongside each boot choice to anything you want.  That is what the user will see on the screen.  If you leave a blank comment, the user will not even know that there is a boot option at that position.  So you could hide the fact that you have Linux or any other os on your PC.  NTLDR only pauses when there is more than one choice, so the fact that it pauses should indicate there is more than one, but only by stepping up and down the list can they be sure how many.  And with Boot.ini a text file, it is easy to modify, although you will have to clear some of the attribute settings first (it is normally system, hidden, and rread only).

Thanks Donald, I'll add a a KVM switch to my shopping list, along with some USB flash drives. With these, I could forget about backup CDs & DVDs.

But how about this:

http://pendrivelinux.com/

Carry a few Linuxes in your shirt pocket.

I haven't done much today with either computer, but I have just finished some related searches via Google, and have these additional links to post.  These mostly relate to boot managers, partition editors and managers, and one neat one for those that got Windows preinstalled, who do not have a reinstall set os CDs - it tells you how to create one.

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Boot_Managers/
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/diskdirector/multibooting.html
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Boot-Manager-Disk/
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Boot-Manager-Disk/GAG-d.shtml
http://www.soft32.com/s/Windows/System_Utilities/Boot_Managers/3-55-0-0.html
http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilities/partitioneditors.shtml
http://www.howtohaven.com/system/createwindowssetupdisk.shtml
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/multi-os/ch2.html
http://www.tucows.com/Windows/IS-IT/OSManagement/BootManagers/

If you are looking for a boot manager, may I suggest you search for one that has features that appeal to you?  Like whether you can password protect access to a boot option, or whether you want a graphical selector rather than a text based one, or whether you can install the boot manager belatedly and it auto-discover (and recover) the ability to boot to previously installed partitions.  Some boot managers can even change which partitions are visible, or what order they are recognized, so that you can trick your OS into seeing different drives as your C: drive, depending upon which one you booted.  Some also include the ability to redirect the boot process to a CD/DVD drive or USB drive, a task normally done by a newer BIOS chip set.  Some are free, some are shareware, and some are sold separately, or come with some utility suite.

Choice is really great, but not recognizing choice is sometimes a problem, and not considering your options can limit you by leaving you to make what is effectively a bad choice. 


Here's another group:
http://manual.sidux.com/en/sys-admin-grub-bootman2-en.htm
http://www.download.com/3000-2094-10068125.html
http://www.osloader.com/
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/boot-blocks.html
http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/pub/doc/suse/suse9.1/adminguide9.1/ch07.html
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html?referrer=google&type=GoogleAdWordsContent
http://www.hiren.info/pages/bootcd


But speaking of GRUB, you may not have yet heard of GRUB4DOS.  I quote this from a related site:

Quote
Difference between GRUB for DOS and GNU GRUB

First of all, GRUB for DOS has a flexible boot loader. Unlike GNU GRUB which relies on three stages of files to boot, GRUB for DOS uses a much better solution. The main function of GRUB is placed in a single file grldr, while the boot loader is placed in another file grldr.mbr, which can be installed to MBR or partition boot sector. At startup, boot code in grldr.mbr will dynamically scan the root directory of every local partition for grldr, and load the first one found. Using this scheme, the location of boot file is no longer fixed, users can move it across partition boundary without causing booting problems.

Secondly, GRUB for DOS can be loaded in multiple ways. GRUB for DOS runtime image comes in two forms. One is grldr, which can be loaded by MBR/partition boot sector and the Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista boot manager. It can also act as the eltorito boot file for bootable CDROM. The other is grub.exe, which is a hybrid executable that can be launched from linux console and DOS prompt.

Thirdly, GRUB for DOS extends the function of GNU GRUB. The most significant enhancement is the map command. In GRUB for DOS, the map command can be used to create virtual harddisks and floppies from image files. These virtual devices can be accessed even after DOS starts.

There are other useful features of GRUB for DOS which are not present in GNU GRUB, such as ATAPI CDROM driver, Chinese support, and so on.

http://grub4dos.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Grub4dos_tutorial#What_is_GRUB_for_DOS

Here is another helpful link:  http://distrowatch.com/
This site lets you find out much more about all the Linux distributions, including the latest news, where to get them (even order some by CD through the site),
what features they include, their names in aiphabetical order, and much more.

You will quickly find out that some distributions are to be had at a cost, and others are free to download.  Also note that some sell you a package, but offer the ability to download the package for free.

I'm sure there are other equally useful sites concerning Linux and other alternative OS'es. but it takes time and effort to search for them, and some finally pop up in the search results almost by chance, or  only surface after exploring some of the links posted on other sites.

Using the Distro Watch site indirectly led me to look at another freebee, the 2X Application Server.  I haven't tried it yet, but I did a cut-and-paste of a couple of articles I found that discussed it and talked abut setting it up.  I put those together into a .doc file, then zipped it, and appended it to this post.

I've been a bit busy, and it has not been alll productive.  I finally decided to begin with two Linux distributions, the latest version of Knoppix, and the version called Simply MEPIS.  Knoppix, as I've already seen, seems to recognize the hardware and run on my PC pretty well, and it uses compression to squeeze about 2 GB of stuff on the CD image.  The newest release, which just came out, that calls itself KnoppMyth, also has improved and simplified the steps for installing it on a hard drive.  But I also selected Simply MEPIS (usually referred to as just MEPIS) because I read two articles online where users thought highly of it.  So I picked it as my alternative, although the latest build is over a year old.

Another factor was that both are based on the Debian distribution, which uses the Deb method of package installs.  This appears to be somewhat easier to manage than the RPM method pioneered from Red Hat.  For those that like Ubantu, the claim is that Simply MEPIS is now based on it, which in turn was based on Debian.  Few people use Debian itself though, as the Stable version is now considered somewhat outdated or outmoded.  A number of people use the unstable version of Debian, which is evolving, but this may not be suitable for beginners.  And in Linuix, that certainly describes me.

I can't say that these are the best choices, but you have to begin somewhere.  And with two, I can compare features and ease of use.  But only one gets the install to hard drive this time.  And Knoppix, because it made it almost brainless, got the nod.

I installed it, and chose to have the boot process placed in the partition rather than written to the MBR (Master Boot Record).  Had I designated the MBR, my ability to boot into Windows would have been lost.  Instead, I am going to use BootPart, a free download, to add the ability to boot to Linux as another choice under NTLDR.  BootPart doesn't explain enough in my opinion, but I found an example of using it described online, so I am going to add that to this post as well.

The real holdup has been that it turns out my CD-RW drive is doing a real poor job of burning CD-Rs right now.  I had to download the .ISO images a couple of times to make sure that they were not the problem, and I've wasted about 10 CD-Rs in an effort to get around the problem, but I guess I will just have to consider replacing the drive.  I have an external DVD-RW drive for emergencies, and dug it out and used it, and got some decent copies made.  I used BootPart for the first time last night, only to find that my efforts to install Simply MEPIS had failed, so I have to do that again.

As to my brother-in-law's PC, both this CD and DVD drives are powered, but are not recognized by the system.  I checked the cabling, and concluded that the second IDE controller channel may be at fault.  Hopefully, I can install a cheap IDE Controller in an empty PCI slot and get around this.  You generally have to spend 1/3rd to 1/2 the cost of a new PC to just replace the motherboard, so when a module fails there, you sometimes hope that you can work around it with a plug-in card, an external device, or some connivance.

LATE POST ---------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm.  Looks like KnoppMyth is a detour for me.  Has something to do with MythTV and creating a set top box, not what I expected.  Even though I supposedly got it installed, the BootPart software failed to link to it as I expected.  The install involved LILO, and I think the BootPart was intented for GRUB.  I'm just guessing at this point.  I downloaded other processes for doing the dual boot, so I can try some other options on the next go around.

Meanwhile, I went back and looked for whatever was most current that involved Knoppix.  Seems to be 5.1.1 right now, but the DVD image has over 4GB content.  I figured I might as well go get that.  Turned out to be a bit hard, as most sites only host the CD images.  One site that had it goet over 2/3rds through the download and hung.  When I checked the site, it apparently had been taken down.  I started again with another.  You can also find sites that will deliver the CD or DVD versions already burned to disk for under $10.
But I'm paying for a high speed connection, and I would have to wait maybe a week to get a disk, so I figure a few hours for a download is not unreasonable.

There was one site that offered Knoppix 5.2 DVD download with BitTorrent.  Only trouble is, that must be another custom build, and I think I want to go with a publicly distributed version for starters.

It's been years since I've tackled Linux, and I had forgotten what a quagmire it can be.  Fact is, I got the impression that it was made oh-so-much easier now, and that you could basically just install it and away you would go!

Not so.  Very much not so.  Oh, a live distribution like Knoppix 5.1.1 boots up easily, but trying to go from there to a full install is another story.  Turns out that attempting to build a boot floppy (rather than cause the MBR on the C: drive to be modified) can fail on bootup with an Error 16 (incompatable file system) if you pick the Debian (recommended) file system during the install.  In fact, you may have to try installing several ways before you find a selection where Grub will then boot it successfully.

I also finally at last somehow got my PC to boot the DVD version, but when I tried to install it, it failed because it immediately tried to access the image on the CDROM drive rather than as found on the DVD drive.  Another OOPS! by the image builders.  Don't they bother to test these things?

Right now I do have a working image of Knoppix on one of my partitions.  And I have a boot floppy that will get me there.  I'm still trying to figure out how to get the NTLDR boot loader on my C: drive updated to give me that as a boot option.  I've rebooted into Windows many times and gone searching on the internet for additional articles and tips, to date without success.  One effort caused me to lose the ability to boot from my hard drive.  Fortunately, GRUB on the floppy still let me boot to the hard drive as an option, and from there I found that bootpart allowed me to restore the ability to boot to the hard drive (it gave me an error, but on testing the results, it worked).

What is suspicious is that each article presents the steps in a slightly different fashion.  That gives you hope that one of them will eventually work, but makes you wonder why there is such a disparity between them.

I'm actually really disappointed with Bootpart, because it seems to work, but then the reboot fails with the Error 16, or some other obscure symptom.  I'm struggling with finding some clarity here. 

One thing you could try, Donald is to install your Linuxes onto a second hard disk. I did this with Linspire on an old Windows Millenium PC and leaving the C drive entirely intact I believe saved a lot of complications.

I wonder how easy it is to do that straight onto a USB flash drive.

My brother-in-law's PC developed an alergy to CD and DVD drives.  I thought it was a hardware problem, but it turned out to be a corrupted key in the Registry.  Using permissions and the Safe Mode, I was finally able to delete the key, and when Windows detected new hardware, it added it back under Unknown.  But the CDRW and DVD drives seem to work okay.

My efforts with Linux have also been somewhat partial in nature.  You have options during installation, and if you explore each one, looking for the best results.  But first I had to make some key changes to my second hard drive.  For this I used Partition Magic 8.0, although the Acronus Disk Director would probably have also been a good choice.

Here is a thumbnail breakdown on hard drive considerations.  Over the years, hard drives have increased in capacity and speed, and at the same time different methods of partitioning and formatting those hare drives have evolved.  Now Microsoft has its way of doing things, and some other operating systems, particularly Unix and Linux, have developed alternative solutions.  Microsoft has essentially three types of hard drive structures:  FAT, FAT32, and NTFS.  FAT stands for File Allocation Table, and NTFS is the New (or Next) Technology File System.  Microsoft ignores other types of file structures, so other partitions of other types on your hard drive are effectively invisible to DOS or Windows.

Unix and Linux are much more aware of other partition types, and even allow you to pick which type you want to work with on the partition where you install either of these OS's.  You can also work with any existing FAT, FAT32, and to some extent, NTFS partitions that exist on that PC.  NTFS is a full journalling file system, and as such, it is much more difficult to duplicate its behavior precisely, so that Windows does not hiccup if you boot to it after having modified its partitions from within Linux, for example.

If you want the greatest degree of compatibility between your DOS or Windows world and Linux, then you might want to use FAT32 for any common or shared disk space.  All three OS's can work with FAT32 quite well.  You can still use NTFS for one of the advanced Windows, or something like Ext3 or Riserfs for your primary Linux partition.

Now partition layout is another matter to consider.  The limitations of the original FAT structure prevented the full access of higher capacity hard drives as they became available, and Microsoft divised a method of repartitioning large hard drives so that they appeared as a series of smaller hard drives, each with its own letter designation.  A single hard drive could be divided into as many as four separate partitions, called primary partitions. In addition, you could make one of those primary partitions into what they called an Extended partition, and subdivide the extended partition into one or more partitions that were called logical partitions,  The general rule was that you needed at least one primary partition that could be used as a system partiton for an OS like DOS or Windows, and that you could only boot to a primary partition, so you would need additional primary partitions for any other OS's you wanted to install.

DOS and Windows 3x/9x/Me insist on being installed on the C: drive, which is normally the first partition.
Winhdow 2K/XP/Vista can be installed on other drives or partitions, but use the NTLDR program and the BOOT.INI file to define where they are, and these have to appear on the C: drive in the root directory /.

Techniically, you can install an OS like Linux into a Logical partition, but this may not be advisable.  The reason is that if you want to use the NTLDR and BOOT.INI method of reaching them, then that will not work.  You would have to rely on LILO, GRUB, or other type of boot manager to make this happen.  NTLDR is a Microsoft product, and only gives due consideration to Primary Partitions. 

You cannot arbitrarily arrange the order of primary, extended, and logical partitions without running into some bazaar results.  Logical partions can only exist in an Extended partition, but but putting a primary partition after an extended/logical structure can be problematic.  For one thing, Microsoft products seem to want to choke on this arrangement.  It may reserve drive letters for the extended and each logical partition before assigning one to the primary partition, leaving a hole in the normal drive letter sequence.

The best way to allocate partitions is to do all your primary partitions first.  You can then follow that with an extended partition, and within that, one or more logical partitions.  In my case, my first hard drive is divided into four partitions, all designated as FAT32, and I have three of those set up as boot partitions for Windows 2K Pro.  My second hard drive is now set up as a primary partiion for Risersf on which I have Knoppix installed, and an extended partition which containx one logical partition which is used for my Linux swap drive, and another logical partition that is set up as NTSF.

Having finally decided on that arrangement, I booted up the Knoppix distribution, and repeatedly installed it to the primary partition on the second drive, until I was at last satisfied with the options I chose.  Once it was installed on that primary partition, it was a simple task to use BOOTPART to modify BOOT.INI to allow a boot option to that partition, which automatically incorporated the GRUB boot process that was installed there.  The method of installing Knoppix is not immediately evident, but after you boot from the CD and get the KDE window up, you have to use the Ctrl+A;t key combo along with the F1 through F4
key to get to a user command prompt.  If you use Ctrl+Alt+F1,  you will likely have to use Enter to bring up the command prompt.  Then you have to type in :knoppix-installer" without the double quotes and hit Enter again,  This will begin the process of allowing you to install the process to your hard drive.

Again I must emphasise that you should back up your computer completely before making any radical changes, just in case you get to a point where you decide to go back.  And be prepared to spend a lot of time doing this.  While some have bragged on installing Linux in 20 minutes or so,  it is unlikely that you will be able to decide on exactly how it should be installed or with what options without repeating this process a good number of times.  Fortunately, your greatest concern is to make sure that you do not overwrite your primary operating system inadvertantly, and at no time during my many attempts did the installer present me with a choice for oversriting ha1m, which would have been my C: drive.  It would indicate the drive that was already set up for a Linux distribution, or that was currently unformatted.

Boy, there is so much I don't know when it comes to moving to Linux.  I'm happy with the Knoppix 5.1.1 install, because it really comes packed with a lot of stuff already accessable via the desktop.  I inadvertently got to a Debian prompt at one point, and it had substantially fewer choices - I could not even figure out how to see any of the hardware or files when that happened, or get back my initial desktop.  So I just went back and reinstalled Knoppix and began again.

My next decision was to see about installing the free version of VMWare Server or VMWare Player.  They are easy enough to find online and download, but the decision to run VMWare on top of Knoppix rather than on top of Windows has proved to be more difficult to research.  That is because many more people seem to install it on Windows, then talk about loading a live distribution of Knoppix under VMWare.

VMWare Server actually comes three ways:  As a binary .tar file (a compressed file similar to a .zip file), an RPM package file, or as a source archive which can be compiled to create the executables.

Now I really don't know what or how to do this.  What happens if I just extract the contents of the .tar file?  Where should they go?  I've read that I can convert an RPM package to a DEP package, and even found an example of an alien command for the purpose, but I don't understand exactly what I am doing or what other steps are involved.  And I am a long way from feeling that I can build new modules to work with Linux.

So comes another choice.  My research did take me to this link:
http://wiki.openvz.org/Download_live_CD
Where you can get a live distribution that comes pre-equipped with OpenVZ, another virtual machine project.  They have already incorporated it into one of two live distributions, the first being Knoppix 5.1.1.  Some gain with less pain, right?

Haiku under heavy load. I thought this was pretty impressive, especially for an Alpha Version of an OS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAc-NDR35Sk&mode=related&search=

Donald, when you have some time available try installing Freebasic and see how it runs under Knoppix. I have just upgraded from 0.16b to 0.18. The compiler picked up a few errors in my code missed by the earlier compiler,(FB is very picky about pointer TYPEs)  but still produces a spurious error at the start of compilation. Something about 'ospeed' being of different type. This is because Freebasic is normally delivered as a binary which endevours to be compatible with all Linux distributions, but slightly different libraries can cause minor problems.

Installing FB on Linux is very simple. You just Uncompress the TAR and, with root priviledges, run:
install.sh -i from a console inside the Freebasic main folder.

One thing which confused me as a novice was not being able to execute compiled programs by name directly.

Local programs alway have to be specified with a path name. So it's ./myprog not myprog.

If you are using the KDE destop, Kwrite is a very good editor with some keyword highlighting. Occasionally it dumps chunks of text from the clipboard into your program for no apparent reason (could be some keystroke combination I dont know about?) but it is so obvious when that happens, it is easy to clean up. It is evident that the KDE developers have paid great attention to detail, and using notepad under MS is a bit of a comedown.

My immediate concern under Knoppix is to get my printer working.  That way when I find stuff to help via online searches, I can make hardcopy and work from these leads.  If I can get that done, I expect to save my partition as a fallback point, then temporarily try installing the downloaded version with OpenVZ already installed.

Years ago, I had to create a multiboot image and layer as many applications onto it as I could manage,  It took months of experiments to get a final, stable version, and I had to frequently pause and make fallback images as I went along, as a point to resume from when I ran into new problems and the current effort fell apart and became unstable or refused to boot and run properly.

I am convinced that the best method for moving on is in attempting small surges, validate your results, then lock them in with necessary backups, before venturing to attempt something else that might prove to be too radical and need to be backed away from. 

Here is another helpful post on installing Knoppix.  It is somewhat dated, but full of useful info, so it makes a good reference.
http://www.linux.com/articles/29235

I'm thinking that all these different choices for Operating Systems, distros, and development software options are not making it easy to focus on anything main core when it comes to a thread to follow. If someone decided to go with Ubantu, Mandrake, or stick with Windows, then my takeoff with Knoppix isn't going to be where you want to go.

What we see happening as a result is that each person spends an inordinate amount of time looking for specific answers and instructions, hoping to pick up enough insight with online searches and by posting questions, until they either get past the hurdle or just give up.  This brings me back to the solution found in the early days of computing, which was creating user groups to address the many issued involved and then share the results, sometimes attempting whole projects together.

The difference today is of course we do have the internet and forums, and with those we do not need to look for a local meeting hall or anything.  We can still collaborate as long as we find common ground.

The ground I want to try and cover for the present is having dual access to Windows and a Linux distribution, currently Knoppix, on the same machine, then tinker around with PowerBasic and FreeBasic and see what my limits are with both.  That may involve using VMWare, Wine, WineX, or other alternatives.

I would be interested in knowing what common ground others would like to explore instead.  Or if anyone would be interested in a conjunctive effort towards the goals I set forth.

Donald, you are right that it is hard to single things down in the linux world.
I don't know if polls can be setup in these forums, but it would be interesting to see the number of users who don't want to move to Vista and would either just stick with XP as long as they can and then move onto Linux or another OS, like Apple's OSX, Haiku or Solaris. But it would be interesting to see the numbers of users interested, then perhaps if enough, another poll can be made to select a linux version. Then sort which KDE or GNOME, which development language and IDE. Anyways thanks for sharing your adventures into linux land!

The Linux distributions have much in common. They use X11 Windows, and usually deploy the KDE or GNOME desktops, and provide Open Office and GIMP (graphics like Photoshop). Full versions have all the major libraries (such as Opengl) on board along with the GCC C++ compiler. KDE is considered to be more sophisticated than GNOME, so better suited for developers.

So I am optimistic that much of the diversity and confusion in the Linux world will resolve itself, and the leaders will be those with the best interoperability and driver support. Cooperation will eventually win out over rivalry.

Donald, I think you need a workshop full of PC's, to carry out your research - perhaps you can acquire or borrow some  old PCs from friends, which would otherwise be consigned to the loft. With only a small number of PCs and components to work with, you are a hostage to fortune.

Even if I had multiple PCs, I would not be sufficient resource by myself to accomplish very much.  But it is like cutting up a pie.  Regardless of how big the pie is, or the size of the piece to be cut, you have to start with a single slice. And you assume that the next person in line wiill either cut according to your slice, or have to start over.  The smart thing is to try and coordinate all the cuts together.

There is no one perfect distribution available.  Even within a single distribution, there will be wide disagreements about which features to esploit, what applications to include, and what works best.

In general, I find that KDE is more like Windows than GNOME is, making it somewhat more familiar and easier to accept,  So it is not just for development, but the better choice for someone who is looking for something similar to the world being left behind.

I booted the image of Knoppix 5.1.1 with OpenVZ integrated into it from my CD drive, and that looks like a good call.  OpenVZ provides a brief tutorial on how to employ the VM software, with some prebuilt VE's provided.  It tells you simply what to do, and gives you a good starting point.

Windows was a lot of point, click, and drag.  There were still many things that needed to be done with the keyboard, but lots of games and many tasks could be managed with just a mouse.  But any effort to move to Linux means learning to type, and to type accurately, if you don't already know how.  And typing also means reading and remembering, because you need to know what to type.  Point, click and drag are not enough by themselves anymore.

Actually, with Windows, there were still many things beyond simple point, click and drag, but either people don't do them. or they get someone to come over a clean up their PCs and fix a few problems when things get bad enough.   In the Windows world, perhaps 80 percent of what you do can be done with the mouse alone, other than entering new text.  In the Linux world, depending on various factors, the mouse may be involved in way less than 20 percent of what you do.  Typing is necessary for the rest.  That is a tremendous difference in how people have to approach Linux when compared to working with Windows, and many people already complain that computers are too difficult for the average person to learn.  Trouble is, kids keep proving the adults are wrong in that regard, but we are all products of our age and the age we live in.

So, if you have reached the point of deciding to finally cut the cord that ties you to Microsoft, you have to realize that delaying and balking at making the switch now is going to make the coversion later a whole lot harder to accomplish.   There is a significant relearning curve to deal with, and even if you try to stay with something that is not a vast departure from what you already know and work with, there will be a slew of new concepts and commands to master.

There are of course many sources for help.  For instance, you can essentially port the BASH command set into DOS and Windows and learn to use them there, or you can add DOS-like commands and features to the bash shell so that you can essentially work as you would under DOS but in the Linux world.  There are many sources of instructions on how to do things - the trick is to learn what they are and devote some time to getting at least the fundamentals down for yourself.

These look like pretty good references for getting started with the bash commands:
http://www.ss64.com/bash/
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/linux/cmd/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-5827311.html
http://infocenter.guardiandigital.com/manuals/SecureCommunity/node260.html
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/ubuntu/keyboard-shortcuts-for-bash-command-shell-for-ubuntu-debian-suse-redhat-linux-etc/
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prog-Intro-HOWTO-3.html
http://www.justlinux.com/nhf/Programming/Bash_Programming_Cheat_Sheet.html
http://www.mediacollege.com/linux/command/shell-command.html

Now we might need to clarify something here.  Most Windows users probably have never seen a DOS prompt, and have no idea of what it signifies, other than it is somehow outmoded and no longer in use or necessary.  You do something through a DOS Window, you are performing black magic in their eyes (the black background probably lends itself to this impression).  We know that the DOS prompt is just another form of a command shell, and that we can introduce both a command and command line parameters at this point, meaning we have more complete control over the behavior of various utilities that are available on the system.

In Linux, the most popular and common command shell today is the BASH shell.  This has been mentioned before.  So learning the ins and outs of using the BASH shell just makes good sense.  But we have another problem, which is that many Linux utilities and third party programs are designed to be used from the command shell rather than invoked through a menu call or by clicking on a desktop icon.  So learning to use bash is more than a mere convenience; it is essential to getting the best out of any Linux distribution.  Even if you were motivated to continuously modify the desktop to support more and more shortcuts and quick calls, you reach a limit of what is possible or even worthwhile, and lose common ground with others who would solve the problem in a different manner.

I think the idea of conducting a poll has merit, but only to prove that we are not alone in our interest in doing something different.  People may be really inclined to do something, or merely debating the merits at this point, or possibly just motivated enough to see which way the rest of us turn.  I for one would not be swayed in my thoughts by the outcome of any poll, preferring to judge for myself and go in my own direction if need be.

I believe in leverage.  If you want to build a secure future, do something that not only sets you apart, but which you can train or leverage other people's talents and skills to accomplish.  That way you can eventually ease your way out and enjoy a life beyond mere work.  Exploiting and endless range of options and deciding on the best combination of factors can be accomplished many ways, and by sharing our experiences, we learn from others what seems to work and what doesn't.  That doesn't mean you can explore every avenue equally and to the same depth, but it is a pragmatic and useful way for disposing of many alternatives quickly.  Which is why I suggest that some of us might work together to a common end. 

I understand the problem about accurate typing at the console, especially with long pathnames and case-sensitive filenames. But there is a instant solution. If you are using the KDE desktop you can use KWRITE ( like NotePad ) to edit your lists of commands - or paste them directly from the tech support pages. They can then be copied and pasted at your leisure into the BASH command line in KONSOLE.

Pasting lines into  Konsole terminal is done with SHIFT-INSERT. This will save you hours of agony.

You can also capture the full pathnames of folders, as with MS Windows by, highlighting them in the location bar and doing Ctrl-C then dunking them info the terminal command line with Shift-Insert.

Just as you have several ways to get to the DOS shell from Windows, you can open a command shell using Ctrl+Alt+ (F1 thru F4), or open a terminal from the desktop.  The name Terminal also refers to using a standalone monitor, mouse, and keyboard to access a computer (usually a mainframe), but don't be fooled in this case, because it just means getting access to a command shell where you can enter text commands,

Most Windows users probably don't know much about managing or editing the
text at the command prompt.  After all, Windows is intended to be a GUI (graphical User Interface), and that means minimal demands on the use of the keyboard, and more emphasis on point, click, and drag with the mouse.

But as stated before, much of what you can do in Linux requires some degree of typing.  Fortunately, if you can source it in a document, web page, text file, or other source outside the Terminal mode, you can copy and paste it into the terminal window and have it execute as though you had just typed it there.

There are some oddities related to Linux that may throw Windows users to start with.  For one thing, DOS has only a fairly small set of internal and external commands that are native to it, although these can be extended with 3rd party programs.  But Linux usually comes with a huge collection of shell commands, utilities, and additional programs that most Windows users have no counterpart to.  Not only is there more that you can do with Linux right out of the box, but there is also a much greater proliferation in ways that it can be done as well.  The prospects of having all that to learn must seem daunting.

However, you can learn it, one piece at a time, just as you learn most other things.  And the strangeness will eventually go away.  But as long as you keep one foot firmly entrenched in the Windows world, and only visit the Linux world infrequently, you will probably have difficulty in making the transition.

One difference is that just typing in a program name in DOS is sufficient to make it run, and the path is only necessary if the program is not found in the current directory nor in the normal sequence of paths as searched in the manner prescribed by Microsoft.  With Windows, you can click on either a program or a file with an extension registered to that program, and the program will launch. The Linux method is somewhat different, where the current directory is searched last, so it probably means that you want to include the path to ensure that the exact version of the program resides to ensure that that is the one that gets launched.  And since Linux does not employ file extensions with any degree of certainty, you may have to tell it that yes, I want to run this program by putting a "run" or period before it (the period is a shorthand way of entering "run').

In DOS, there are usually two ways to find out what a program or command is or does.  One is to type the command or program name with a /? or -?, or possibly and /h or -h after it to signify that you want help in learning what it is and what it does.  Not all programs will give you this information, but it is fairly common and often worth trying.  The other way is to type HELP and the command or program name after it, which may work if the command or program is native to DOS or Windows, and included in the Help system.  With DOS, capitalization of letters is not significant.

With Linux, capitalization is very important, and while you can try to use a command or program name followed by -?, -h, or --help, you also have the man (manual) or info (information) documentation available that you would use in place of the HELP that DOS and Windows provide.  In other words, you could try man [command name] or info [command name] with the actual name in place of the bracketed parameter.  If, for instance, you wanted to know what whoami does, you could try to type man whoami or info whoami, and check out the results.