What's the difference? Ubuntu Server Edition vs Desktop Edition

[ET/IT]

What's the difference between the two? Are Microsoft video games compatible? I have incredibly limited experience with Ubuntu, but I'm strongly considering switching to Ubuntu. Or working a dual boot where I can choose either VISTA or Ubuntu. going over Ubuntu.com I've found I can request a disk of either the Server Edition, or the Desktop Edition. Of which, I have no idea what the differences are. Any help?

 

[Jayce]

You do not want server edition. Server edition is strongly geared towards the server environment, and does not even come pre-packaged with a user interface. It's an OS that is entirely ran at the command line level. Likewise, the desktop edition, while being a desktop operating system, is actually extremely capable of acting as a fully functional server. I run Ubuntu desktop edition in quite a few servers, all with fantastic performance and uptime.

At this time, "Microsoft" games are not compatible. I put that in quotes because Microsoft does not own Battlefield, or Call of Duty. Those games are manufactured by independent companies that supply games for the Windows platform due to its high amount of usage. There are Linux based games available, but you will not be able to utilize Windows games on Linux.

In more uplifting news, Steam has announced a Linux client. If you're not aware who Steam is, they are basically a powerhouse that supplies a game store with download-ready content when purchased. I can go to my steam account (a program, kind of like facebook for gamers) and go to the store and purchase games. Once purchased, I can download them. It's an excellent platform and very handy. Likewise, Steam has quite a foot print in the gaming industry, and has been said many times "breathed life back into PC gaming" in the last few years. We can only hope (and I wouldn't be surprised) that Steam would pressure game makers to make Mac and Linux compatible game titles into the future. I do not see this happening tomorrow, next week, next month, etc., but I do believe the future of PC gaming is not entirely a Windows world anymore. The PC gaming revolution has begun. Enjoy it.

I recommend you do what I do, and dual boot. I too have Vista, with a Win 7 copy staring me in the face that I have yet to install since I only use Vista for gaming. I have dual booted Vista and Ubuntu desktop edition for quite a few years now and have enjoyed having both operating systems readily available to tackle whatever I need. Word of advice, if you dual boot, install Windows first. The Windows boot loader has a tendency to wipe the Linux boot loader if you install Linux first, making it non-accessible. So if you install Windows first (and leave partitioned space for Linux to sit) then install Linux in the free space, you're good.

By the way, you don't have to buy a Linux CD. You can download it, and burn it as an image to a blank CD (at the slowest speed of course, to reduce the chance of write errors) using a program such as ImgBurn (Windows) or Brasero (Linux).

 

[ET/IT]

I've had STEAM since Day of Defeat: Source came out. (and Counter-Strike: Source) that's good to know I wont have to give up gaming. Personally, not at all surprised to hear that about Microsoft installation. But what if at some point in time I upgraded Windows VISTA to Windows 8. Could I still do that with a partitioned drive? Without erasing Ubuntu/denying access to it? And as far as burning a disk, so when I go to burn a new CD, all I do is do "Burn Image to Disk" and that's all?

 

[Jayce]

Yes - burn image to disk. At that point you will select the UbuntuDesktop1004.ISO or whatever you downloaded from Ubuntu.com and burn it. But please - burn at slowest speed. This will ensure data integrity. I've had a few failed installs due to trying to zip through the burning process.

Yes - as long as you do not change the partitioning structure of your hard drive, you will always have a "home" for Ubuntu + Windows. The key thing to remember is this... the Windows boot loader doesn't play nice, and always over-writes the Ubuntu boot loader. On the flip side, Grub (the Linux boot loader Ubuntu uses) plays nice and "accepts" Windows into its life.

Windows first + Ubuntu second = successful boot on both via Grub.
Ubuntu first + Windows second = successful boot with Windows only.

That being said, if you install Vista + Ubuntu and get it working, but a year from now (or whenever) install Windows 8, Windows 8 will (more than likely) wipe the Grub boot loader, making it impossible to boot to Ubuntu. Don't worry. There's easy ways to recover Grub and get both operating systems fired up again. Most of the guides I've found are also done using the LiveCD, which is the installer CD you asked about above with burning. The CD can be used to boot to a live session without making any changes to your computer OR install Ubuntu. It's really a handy tool, and something I use quite a lot here at work.

Partitioning wise, like I said just make a standard that works for you and stick with it. I have a 500gb drive, so I have Vista on 80gb and the remaining 420gb with Ubuntu. I leave it at that and it works for me. If I install Windows 7, it would get dumped over top of the 80gb section Vista takes up, which would not effect Ubuntu (besides having to re-do Grub for both OS's to boot accordingly).

And real quick, you mentioned you were glad you didn't have to give up gaming. Please be aware while Steam is working hard to support Mac and Linux users, it is a big undertaking to handle. I expect it to happen, but not anytime soon. But like I said, as long as you dual boot, you get the best of both worlds. For me it's gaming in Windows, and everything else in Linux. If I could, I'd triple boot with OSX just for learning purposes, but *biting my tongue* Apple doesn't allow me to do that since they're so *biting tongue* awesome.

Holy **** that was hard...

 

[ET/IT]

Thank you very much! I really appreciate the information. I probably will end up doing what you do, keep Windows to play games, but use Linux for everything else. I know I wont need to give up music etc. nor videos, projects, and online work. Thank you very much Jayce!

 

[Jayce]

Not a problem. I find it's very handy to keep multiple operating systems on your computer just for the sheer learning experience. I have used Windows easily 2x as much as Linux, but in the last few years I've used exclusively Linux just based on my own interests in open source software. I still use Windows quite a lot at work, and here and there at home. Most of my Windows @ Home work is done through XP Pro, which I have running virtually in Ubuntu. I'm learning in the IT field that knowing multiple platforms can be extremely beneficial, because an OS is a tool, and no tool out there can handle every job you throw at it, so a little variety in the tool bag is a nice thing to have. So while I do commend your enthusiasm for wanting to dual boot and learn Ubuntu as much as you can, just remember Windows is just a reboot away. Learning a new platform can be challenging, but patience and asking questions here as well as UbuntuForums.org would be extremely beneficial to you.

Also keep in mind, Ubuntu is not the only Linux out there. There are dozens upon dozens of more distros out there, each with their own distinct feel. If you want to get crazy, you can fire them up in virtual instances if you want to and check out what other distributions are doing. The possibilities are endless. Just for a little idea on what distros are out there, distrowatch.com is a good place to visit.

 

[ET/IT]

Not a problem. I find it's very handy to keep multiple operating systems on your computer just for the sheer learning experience. I have used Windows easily 2x as much as Linux, but in the last few years I've used exclusively Linux just based on my own interests in open source software. I still use Windows quite a lot at work, and here and there at home. Most of my Windows @ Home work is done through XP Pro, which I have running virtually in Ubuntu. I'm learning in the IT field that knowing multiple platforms can be extremely beneficial, because an OS is a tool, and no tool out there can handle every job you throw at it, so a little variety in the tool bag is a nice thing to have. So while I do commend your enthusiasm for wanting to dual boot and learn Ubuntu as much as you can, just remember Windows is just a reboot away. Learning a new platform can be challenging, but patience and asking questions here as well as UbuntuForums.org would be extremely beneficial to you.

Also keep in mind, Ubuntu is not the only Linux out there. There are dozens upon dozens of more distros out there, each with their own distinct feel. If you want to get crazy, you can fire them up in virtual instances if you want to and check out what other distributions are doing. The possibilities are endless. Just for a little idea on what distros are out there, distrowatch.com is a good place to visit.

Personally, I'm digging PCLinuxOS quite a bit. Ubuntu I've heard of quite extensively, because it's the #1 OS used by the U.S. Military/Government outside of Windows VISTA. (It takes a few years before the gov goes to another OS because they want to know how it'll effect pre-existing systems) Personally, I really like the user interface of PCLinuxOS. But I also like to customization features Ubuntu has. command lines for Linux OSs are practically identical. So once you learn the "language" it's very easy to catch on between OSs.

 

[Jayce]

Personally, I'm digging PCLinuxOS quite a bit. Ubuntu I've heard of quite extensively, because it's the #1 OS used by the U.S. Military/Government outside of Windows VISTA. (It takes a few years before the gov goes to another OS because they want to know how it'll effect pre-existing systems) Personally, I really like the user interface of PCLinuxOS. But I also like to customization features Ubuntu has. command lines for Linux OSs are practically identical. So once you learn the "language" it's very easy to catch on between OSs.

Absolutely. The beautiful thing about Linux in itself is just how wide of a variety you can find among the distributions. Sometimes people get fired up about this distro vs that distro, but I look at distros like I look at beer. You're all out having a good time, whether it's light beer, lager, etc. Live it up and have some fun.

PCLos utilizes the KDE desktop. KDE is a desktop environment. Gnome is also a desktop environment. Look at it this way - with Windows, you have just that. Windows. With Mac, you have just that. You're stuck with the interface that is pre-defined within the limitations of the OS itself. A desktop environment in the Linux world is basically the entire GUI interface sitting on top of the OS itself, making it easy to change between. Each desktop environment interacts with the operating system in a different manner, and each have their pros and cons. Gnome is what Ubuntu uses by default, and KDE is what PCLos uses by default. PCLos strives to mimic Mandriva, but also at the toot of their own horn as well. PCLos is what you would call a fork (of Mandriva) much like Ubuntu being a fork of Debian.

KDE is available on Ubuntu as well, but it is known as Kubuntu, which can be had @ kubuntu.com. I have a ton of respect for KDE and I really dig the interface, but Gnome tends to have a slightly better track record in the stability department and I personally feel it has a more accurate "business feel" to it, which makes it a good candidate for my work laptop. KDE 4.5 has brought even more stability to the table, but still has a ways to go before I jump in full bore with it. I personally find KDE more customizable than Gnome. KDE is ridiculous with what all you can do. Gnome has a ton of options too with customizing, and often times more than enough to keep me plenty occupied.

So to look at the big picture, you can choose from dozens of distributions that each have their own benefits. Further building onto that, you can also customize which desktop environment to get. Like I said, everything has its limitations, pros, cons, benefits, but finding a scenario that fits your needs is the name of the game.

 

[ET/IT]

Absolutely. The beautiful thing about Linux in itself is just how wide of a variety you can find among the distributions. Sometimes people get fired up about this distro vs that distro, but I look at distros like I look at beer. You're all out having a good time, whether it's light beer, lager, etc. Live it up and have some fun.

PCLos utilizes the KDE desktop. KDE is a desktop environment. Gnome is also a desktop environment. Look at it this way - with Windows, you have just that. Windows. With Mac, you have just that. You're stuck with the interface that is pre-defined within the limitations of the OS itself. A desktop environment in the Linux world is basically the entire GUI interface sitting on top of the OS itself, making it easy to change between. Each desktop environment interacts with the operating system in a different manner, and each have their pros and cons. Gnome is what Ubuntu uses by default, and KDE is what PCLos uses by default. PCLos strives to mimic Mandriva, but also at the toot of their own horn as well. PCLos is what you would call a fork (of Mandriva) much like Ubuntu being a fork of Debian.

KDE is available on Ubuntu as well, but it is known as Kubuntu, which can be had @ kubuntu.com. I have a ton of respect for KDE and I really dig the interface, but Gnome tends to have a slightly better track record in the stability department and I personally feel it has a more accurate "business feel" to it, which makes it a good candidate for my work laptop. KDE 4.5 has brought even more stability to the table, but still has a ways to go before I jump in full bore with it. I personally find KDE more customizable than Gnome. KDE is ridiculous with what all you can do. Gnome has a ton of options too with customizing, and often times more than enough to keep me plenty occupied.

So to look at the big picture, you can choose from dozens of distributions that each have their own benefits. Further building onto that, you can also customize which desktop environment to get. Like I said, everything has its limitations, pros, cons, benefits, but finding a scenario that fits your needs is the name of the game.

The GUI on XP, VISTA, and 7 are also highly customizable. You have to know what your doing, and be able to play with the command prompt a bit to enable changes, but it's all customizable.

I'm digging Ubuntu because it's purely customizable, and apparently, strongly orientated to individuals who have no experience at all. As soon as I finish a work project, I'll be booting up Ubuntu. I've got a couple Army and Navy buds who'll help me work out configuring Ubuntu. Since all of the systems on a Navy Frigate and Aircraft Carrier, and all the systems found in a Signal Battalion are all Ubuntu (outside of some PCs which operate Windows VISTA) I don't think it'll be too hard to figure the stuff out.

Apparently Ubuntu is also a strong advocate for computer networking, and file recovery as well. (using Ubuntu to break into a Windows OS to recover files lost, I learned this after speaking to a Digital Forensics Specialist at the local Sheriffs Department) So as far as going for my Red Hat, Ubuntu may be the way to go.

Plus with Windows 7 base code being thrown out to the public market, it would come as no surprise if OSs such as Ubuntu got a "sudden upgrade" to include a few more features found in Windows 7. With no cost at all.

 

[Jayce]

The GUI on XP, VISTA, and 7 are also highly customizable. You have to know what your doing, and be able to play with the command prompt a bit to enable changes, but it's all customizable.

I'm digging Ubuntu because it's purely customizable, and apparently, strongly orientated to individuals who have no experience at all. As soon as I finish a work project, I'll be booting up Ubuntu. I've got a couple Army and Navy buds who'll help me work out configuring Ubuntu. Since all of the systems on a Navy Frigate and Aircraft Carrier, and all the systems found in a Signal Battalion are all Ubuntu (outside of some PCs which operate Windows VISTA) I don't think it'll be too hard to figure the stuff out.

Apparently Ubuntu is also a strong advocate for computer networking, and file recovery as well. (using Ubuntu to break into a Windows OS to recover files lost, I learned this after speaking to a Digital Forensics Specialist at the local Sheriffs Department) So as far as going for my Red Hat, Ubuntu may be the way to go.

Plus with Windows 7 base code being thrown out to the public market, it would come as no surprise if OSs such as Ubuntu got a "sudden upgrade" to include a few more features found in Windows 7. With no cost at all.

A lot of "features" that users discovered in Windows 7 had already existed in Linux land for a few years. But hey, if somebody wants to take open source functionality and try to pass off calling it their own, fine - but they're not fooling everyone out there. It seems to be a common trend that Linux is hard to use, and while Linux may have a vast array of advanced utilities that may send basic users through a loop, it's actually very easy to learn. A lot of people tend to look at unfamiliar territory as being hard. I personally had this issue when I tried out OSX, as simple as OSX strives to be I just felt weird using it and felt frustrated when trying to do certain tasks. Ultimately when I tried Ubuntu, things just kind of flowed for me.

The LiveCD thing for Linux (and this is not exclusive to Ubuntu) is a huge help. When I have a hardware failure or a corrupt Windows install at work, I have a large flash drive that is partitioned off. I have one partition of 1.5GB which is the OS, and the remaining space is NTFS for storage. This makes it an excellent 1-2-combo because I can boot to it via USB, load the live OS, recover some data and toss it to the storage section of the same flash drive. Mighty handy.

Just a fun video regarding the topic we're on - YouTube - Is it Windows 7 or KDE 4?