Ubuntu Is A Joke

[nikster]

Installed Ubuntu in a record zero time by downloading a VMWare image - it's amazing. No install.

Then I went to the page where the Applet I am developing resides. I got a prompt "If you see this, you don't have Java installed. Install from here <link>". So far so good. Positive surprise: The Sun Java page actually offers an install for Linux. Download.

Then things went south fast: I click on the downloaded .rpm.bin file, get a prompt with which app I want to open this unknown file.

- Google search

- Terminal sudo u+x (downloaded file)

- sudo run (downloaded file)

- cryptic error message RPM not found, getting sick of this already

- Google search

- Terminal sudo aptitude install sun-java6-jre sun-java6-plugin sun-java6-fonts

Ok this is where I am at now, hopefully it works.

But folks. This is 2010. Ubuntu is supposed to be the Linux for the masses. It's just a huge failure. These are basics. How hard can it be to be able to freaking install software downloaded from the internet? \

I even know about the mysteriously named synaptics package manager. When narrowing the search to Java, I get about 500 hits with all sorts of weird things that are related to Java in some way. Not helpful.

[SeanMoran]

Have you tried the Ubuntu Software Centre at the bottom of the Applications Menu? Open it, click on the Internet icon, and then scroll down to Sun Java 6.0 Plugin. It's quite hilarious.

[Insight]

Java has gone annoyingly wrong on Ubuntu. I tried to install the Eclipse IDE a few months ago - gave up owing to problems with the incorrect JRE. Couldn't even get it past the Eclipse splash screen. Gave up after about two hours of chasing info on various forums.

Purposely chose to test Java on Linux so it would remain free from any interference from MS. Guess they can't be blamed for this one.

[SeanMoran]

Java has gone annoyingly wrong on Ubuntu. I tried to install the Eclipse IDE a few months ago - gave up owing to problems with the incorrect JRE. Couldn't even get it past the Eclipse splash screen. Gave up after about two hours of chasing info on various forums.

Purposely chose to test Java on Linux so it would remain free from any interference from MS. Guess they can't be blamed for this one.

Do bear in mind that Sun Java is not open-source software, but the installation method through the Ubuntu Software Centre is extremely simple. Make sure also that you have ticked the checkboxes for Partner in the Other Software tab of the Software Sources utility. That might ease the pain a little.

BTW, the Lucid Lynx beta I finally managed to download the .iso for overnight is very pretty indeed. I am using it now, as a matter of fact.

---o0o---

Actually, this is a perfect opportunity to download Sun Java to Lucid Lynx for the first time. I just clicked on install from the abovementioned simplified utility at two minutes past 10am. It's a 63.5 MB download if I recall from the last time. I'll hopefully be able to login to a chat forum in 30 minutes or so, and report back then if all goes well.

-----ooo0ooo-----

That was a quick install this time. I just logged into an Ajax chatroom without a problem, if that's any indication on whether Sun Java 6.0 works okay on Lucid Lynx beta.

Edited March 19, 2010 by SeanMoran

[higgy88]

Interestingly, I only have problems with Firefox 3.6, and there is lots of discussion about that in the Ubuntu forums.

Google Chrome works just fine. Good browser!

[Jdietz]

Applications - Ubuntu Software Center - Install software - Ubuntu Restricted Extras - Done.

All non-free stuff that you basically want / need, but for legal reasons can't be included in the distribution, all in one nice package. No command lines needed.

[Cuban]

I'm having a bad ubuntu day too - display setting buggered, it's in BIG TEXT mode.

[welo]

That was a quick install this time. I just logged into an Ajax chatroom without a problem, if that's any indication on whether Sun Java 6.0 works okay on Lucid Lynx beta.

If it's AJAX then it is 'built-in browser technology' (mainly Javascript) and NOT Java. (Despite the name Javascript has nothing to do with Java). Go to one of the Java test pages to see if it is working:

http://www.javatester.org/version.html

http://www.java.com/en/download/help/testvm.xml

Please note that for Java in the web browser to work it is not only required to have Java installed but also the Java Plugin integrated into the web browser that you are using. So even if your Java is working and you can run Java based desktop programs like Eclipse or Vuze, there still might be issues with Java in the web browser.

Not sure how this works under Linux and relates to the package manager concept. On the Windows platform the Java Installer will detect web browsers installed on the system and install a connector/plugin/addon into each of them (if supported).

Compare this to software like Quicktime where you have the desktop player to start the standalone player and the browser integration to use Quicktime to play media files embedded into a webpage.

In Firefox you can go to Tools/Addons/plugins and the Java plugin should show up.

welo

[SeanMoran]

That was a quick install this time. I just logged into an Ajax chatroom without a problem, if that's any indication on whether Sun Java 6.0 works okay on Lucid Lynx beta.

If it's AJAX then it is 'built-in browser technology' (mainly Javascript) and NOT Java. (Despite the name Javascript has nothing to do with Java). Go to one of the Java test pages to see if it is working:

http://www.javatester.org/version.html

http://www.java.com/en/download/help/testvm.xml

Please note that for Java in the web browser to work it is not only required to have Java installed but also the Java Plugin integrated into the web browser that you are using. So even if your Java is working and you can run Java based desktop programs like Eclipse or Vuze, there still might be issues with Java in the web browser.

Not sure how this works under Linux and relates to the package manager concept. On the Windows platform the Java Installer will detect web browsers installed on the system and install a connector/plugin/addon into each of them (if supported).

Compare this to software like Quicktime where you have the desktop player to start the standalone player and the browser integration to use Quicktime to play media files embedded into a webpage.

In Firefox you can go to Tools/Addons/plugins and the Java plugin should show up.

welo

It's okay. I just know that the chatforum in question requires Sun Java to run the chatbox. It's got Ajax written in the chatbox so that's what it would appear to be named, and it doesn't run without Sun Java, which is a totally separate animal to javascript. It might be seen as a competitor to this forum, which is why I thought it best not to name it, but there aren't too many districts in Samut Prakan that you have to look through to guess the name from.

[nikster]

Have you tried the Ubuntu Software Centre at the bottom of the Applications Menu? Open it, click on the Internet icon, and then scroll down to Sun Java 6.0 Plugin. It's quite hilarious.

Hmm-hm. Right. Not good enough. I mean - so there's a link on that web page that tells me to click it to install Java. And that should be the end of the story. That link should just install Java. It's that simple on Windows, can you believe it? Even on Windows XP. I guess it's Sun's fault as well, I don't know what's up with their RPM - bin, but overall it's the problem that there's no working, simple unified install method for Linux. For if there were, I am sure they'd have used it.

The software update center is nice, but where's the web integration? Where does it get info on all available softwares on the planet?

It seems like Ubuntu is forever stuck in the "almost, but not quite enough" corner of usability.

[welo]

It's okay. I just know that the chatforum in question requires Sun Java to run the chatbox. It's got Ajax written in the chatbox so that's what it would appear to be named, and it doesn't run without Sun Java, which is a totally separate animal to javascript. It might be seen as a competitor to this forum, which is why I thought it best not to name it, but there aren't too many districts in Samut Prakan that you have to look through to guess the name from.

OK, sorry, I see. I know that sometimes I'm a bit chatty, and as a Java programmer I just had to point out the alleged mixup between two completely different technologies, AJAX and Java. But I can see that you have everything under control, sorry for the fuss

welo

[SeanMoran]

It's okay. I just know that the chatforum in question requires Sun Java to run the chatbox. It's got Ajax written in the chatbox so that's what it would appear to be named, and it doesn't run without Sun Java, which is a totally separate animal to javascript. It might be seen as a competitor to this forum, which is why I thought it best not to name it, but there aren't too many districts in Samut Prakan that you have to look through to guess the name from.

OK, sorry, I see. I know that sometimes I'm a bit chatty, and as a Java programmer I just had to point out the alleged mixup between two completely different technologies, AJAX and Java. But I can see that you have everything under control, sorry for the fuss

welo

No worries mate. The main thing is how much it's easy if you know how, and so I understand the OP's frustration, like many times my own, when we take the long way around the problem. RPM used to stand for RedHat Package Management if I recall all those years ago, while Ubuntu is a Debian-based dizzy, so a .deb package might have more luck. Not that RPMs won't extract in Ubuntu, but it's a more risky venture, so that is why the simplest solution is to take the quick and easy user-friendly road and just allow those restricted packages as mentioned above, (or tick the Partner option in Software Sources) and get Java running in the expected way, and not off some unverified website, (even if it happens to be the Sun Java site )

Also, I had a random access memory error earlier in my own mind, in writing that Sun Java 6.0 was a 63.5 MB .deb package. I was confusing it with Acrobat Reader which is the other waste of bandwidth that takes 63.5 MB to download. I don't have much time for Acrobat nor Flash nor Java so that is why I sometimes get them confused, as they're all much the same to me - other people's software - high overhead, low volumetric efficiency, curses on the world-wide web them all.

Sun Java 6.0 Plugin is actually only a 36.1Mb download total for Ubuntu in .deb package format.

[TerraPosse]

Have you tried the Ubuntu Software Centre at the bottom of the Applications Menu? Open it, click on the Internet icon, and then scroll down to Sun Java 6.0 Plugin. It's quite hilarious.

Hmm-hm. Right. Not good enough. I mean - so there's a link on that web page that tells me to click it to install Java. And that should be the end of the story. That link should just install Java. It's that simple on Windows, can you believe it? Even on Windows XP. I guess it's Sun's fault as well, I don't know what's up with their RPM - bin, but overall it's the problem that there's no working, simple unified install method for Linux. For if there were, I am sure they'd have used it.

The software update center is nice, but where's the web integration? Where does it get info on all available softwares on the planet?

It seems like Ubuntu is forever stuck in the "almost, but not quite enough" corner of usability.

I'm sorry to hear you are having a bad day with it but seriously, the software update centre is there to take away all the pain of installing packages and it works.  I only had one or two programs so far I had to install the old-fashioned way.  Marlin, a lightroom kind of program in beta being one of them.

I only use the Netbook Remix here but as far as usability goes it has overtaken Win with the 9.10 release.

[SeanMoran]

Have you tried the Ubuntu Software Centre at the bottom of the Applications Menu? Open it, click on the Internet icon, and then scroll down to Sun Java 6.0 Plugin. It's quite hilarious.

Hmm-hm. Right. Not good enough. I mean - so there's a link on that web page that tells me to click it to install Java. And that should be the end of the story. That link should just install Java. It's that simple on Windows, can you believe it? Even on Windows XP. I guess it's Sun's fault as well, I don't know what's up with their RPM - bin, but overall it's the problem that there's no working, simple unified install method for Linux. For if there were, I am sure they'd have used it.

The software update center is nice, but where's the web integration? Where does it get info on all available softwares on the planet?

It seems like Ubuntu is forever stuck in the "almost, but not quite enough" corner of usability.

Fair enough then. I recommend you take your Ubuntu back to the shop and ask for a refund.

[TerraPosse]

Have you tried the Ubuntu Software Centre at the bottom of the Applications Menu? Open it, click on the Internet icon, and then scroll down to Sun Java 6.0 Plugin. It's quite hilarious.

Hmm-hm. Right. Not good enough. I mean - so there's a link on that web page that tells me to click it to install Java. And that should be the end of the story. That link should just install Java. It's that simple on Windows, can you believe it? Even on Windows XP. I guess it's Sun's fault as well, I don't know what's up with their RPM - bin, but overall it's the problem that there's no working, simple unified install method for Linux. For if there were, I am sure they'd have used it.

The software update center is nice, but where's the web integration? Where does it get info on all available softwares on the planet?

It seems like Ubuntu is forever stuck in the "almost, but not quite enough" corner of usability.

Fair enough then. I recommend you take your Ubuntu back to the shop and ask for a refund.

 Thank you Sir for this quote of the day.  

[welo]

I would like to hear an expert comment on the concept of Linux package managers versus Windows' DLL hel_l.

I mean I see pros and cons of both systems, but as far as freedom of choice goes, which seems to be so important to the Linux community, I'd name Windows the winner. Download and run the installer of any program you find on the internet.

Knowing that you can compile any open source Linux software from the source or install RPMs/packages that are not explicitly hosted in your distro's package repository, I still consider this not applicable for the average user (my neighbor, my kids, my non-techie friend, my uncle, my mom, etc).

I do see many advantages of the repository concept - tested compatibility and safety, ease of install - but doesn't it favor established software and weaken competition?

I don't want to get into a Windows vs. Linux fight, please no! I would like to hear a summary of the two concepts as if they had not the 'Microsoft' or 'Linux' sticker attached.

It's just that the example of the Java plug-in gave me something to think. You cannot blame a vendor to not offer install packages for all available (major) distros. On the other hand why not? Instead of testing your software on multiple Windows systems, why not work together with Distro maintainers to get your software into those repositories. But I guess it might be sometimes hard shipping updates for your own applications when you are depending on somebody else, also because there often seems to be some kind of 'politics' involved in the Linux world. You see that I go back and forth, would like to hear more experienced users commenting on this.

welo

[winty]

Hi Nikster

Have you tried Linux mint?based around Ubuntu,in my opinion better.

[nevermore93]

I run a dual OS with Ubuntu as my backup. I still use Win XP as my primary, but when all else fails Ubuntu always works for system stuff. Yes, Ubuntu has a ways to go and if you have the time to mess with it, you can do some pretty cool stuff with it. However, I'm still sticking with my pirated XP. If I still had my way, I'd still be using Win 95 SP2, but I'm just weird that way.

BTW loved the "get your money back comment" regarding Ubuntu. Funny stuff

That reminds me, I haven't played around with Linux for a while. Hmmm. There goes the rest of my morning.

[nikster]

I would like to hear an expert comment on the concept of Linux package managers versus Windows' DLL hel_l.

I mean I see pros and cons of both systems, but as far as freedom of choice goes, which seems to be so important to the Linux community, I'd name Windows the winner. Download and run the installer of any program you find on the internet.

Knowing that you can compile any open source Linux software from the source or install RPMs/packages that are not explicitly hosted in your distro's package repository, I still consider this not applicable for the average user (my neighbor, my kids, my non-techie friend, my uncle, my mom, etc).

Linux needs the package managers because it never got the "any installer will just install the software" to work technically. I don't know if they've even tried. The Linux mentality is that you can compile your stuff yourself. Nevermind that that's very inconvenient, and that this is 2010, not 1974. Wanna install a Java plug-in - how about spending a few hours debugging make files? Err... right. No thanks. They'll say but it's so easy, you just type make install foobar, and off it goes! Except that more often than not, that doesn't work and you have to go in and find what's wrong and basically debug the software before even running it once. Stupid.

This is a weakness in Linux. I think the Ubuntu foundation would do well addressing this ASAP. How hard can it be to create a universal linux installer methodology? I think all you'd need is a clearly defined standard, and an implementation for the 3 or 4 biggest Linux desktop distributions. Maybe a test environment where you can automatically test all distributions that care about it.

OS X proves that you don't need a DLL hel_l in order to get installers working. It also shows how you can manage having multiple versions of frameworks on your system. It's all out there. DLLs should in any case be a thing of the past - any software should install all that is required in its own directory, so it can be cleanly installed / uninstalled / moved. This is working on OS X for the most part. On the iPhone/iPad it's enforced. Sharing code in order to save disk space is an idea from 30 years ago, and I am not even sure it was a very good idea back then.

[welo]

Comments in blue.

Linux needs the package managers because it never got the "any installer will just install the software" to work technically. I don't know if they've even tried. The Linux mentality is that you can compile your stuff yourself. Nevermind that that's very inconvenient, and that this is 2010, not 1974.

Yeah, that's my point. Why it doesn't work or why did they never try? I've come across only a view .bin installers in my life, sometimes they worked but more often they didn't. I guess it's all about the dependency management, because there is not really a set of 'core components' and from a programmer's point of view APIs probably change often and break backwards compatibility. To me seems to bit a 'dll hel_l' of its own.

I guess this is why an installer cannot just copy the files somewhere and make minor configuration work based on the environment. It would have to check a hel_l lot of dependencies and program versions it depends on. Of course this differs from software to software.

Wanna install a Java plug-in - how about spending a few hours debugging make files? Err... right. No thanks. They'll say but it's so easy, you just type make install foobar, and off it goes! Except that more often than not, that doesn't work and you have to go in and find what's wrong and basically debug the software before even running it once. Stupid.

One other aspect of Linux and its community is the various fractions within the community having different opinions on where Linux should go and what is important. The compile-from-source fraction does not care about usability or ease-of-use and usability for non-technical users, I guess. Or will just conclude that those users require an administrator to take care for their computer system and that way close the discussion.

But obviously there are many Linux programmers/advocates/etc out there nowadays who do want Linux to be easy to use and attract non-technical users.

Maybe the difference is that on Windows there is no distinct line between non-technical users and 'administrator' like users, rather a smooth transition with all kind of different 'shadings'.

But besides that discussion on users vs. administrators there is still those kind of technically-skilled users (like me and you) that despite having the skill-set to accomplish such tasks as recompiling a package from source still don't think of it as a desirable way to administer their system.

This is a weakness in Linux. I think the Ubuntu foundation would do well addressing this ASAP. How hard can it be to create a universal linux installer methodology? I think all you'd need is a clearly defined standard, and an implementation for the 3 or 4 biggest Linux desktop distributions. Maybe a test environment where you can automatically test all distributions that care about it.

Like I mentioned above, I guess the problem is the dependency management and 'volatile' APIs of Linux software which IMHO is a management issue.

OS X proves that you don't need a DLL hel_l in order to get installers working. It also shows how you can manage having multiple versions of frameworks on your system. It's all out there. DLLs should in any case be a thing of the past - any software should install all that is required in its own directory, so it can be cleanly installed / uninstalled / moved. This is working on OS X for the most part. On the iPhone/iPad it's enforced. Sharing code in order to save disk space is an idea from 30 years ago, and I am not even sure it was a very good idea back then.

Are there relevant technical differences between BSD-based OSX and Linux that makes it easier or possible on Mac OSX compared to Linux. My guess it is more a management issue, and Apple controlling the OS and its APIs.

Btw isn't DLL sharing intended to share memory not disk space?

Edited March 20, 2010 by welo

[SeanMoran]

That was a quick install this time. I just logged into an Ajax chatroom without a problem, if that's any indication on whether Sun Java 6.0 works okay on Lucid Lynx beta.

If it's AJAX then it is 'built-in browser technology' (mainly Javascript) and NOT Java. (Despite the name Javascript has nothing to do with Java). Go to one of the Java test pages to see if it is working:

http://www.javatester.org/version.html

http://www.java.com/en/download/help/testvm.xml

Welo, may I apologise for my own foolish mistake, as I did just login to that same AJAX chatbox on this new installation which I'm testing eViacam and a few Universal Access packages, and have yet to bother installing Sun Java 6.0 Plugin.

You were correct in explaining that AJAX does NOT require Sun Java, and I foolishly lumped that chatbox in with some of the others that do. Next time I will test out these things to make sure I know what I'm talking about before posting.

I am so deeply ashamed of myself for not clarifying the wisdom of your correction at the time.

[welo]

LOL. oh well, never mind, too much fuss about nothing for my taste

However, you have my respect for acknowledging your mistake, this is a very noble character attribute in my opinion.

welo

[shriah]

To install Sun jdk

sudo apt-get install sun-java6-jdk

To install only the sun jre library or

sudo apt-get install sun-java6-jre

There is also openjdk an Open Source implementation of Sun Java , Which is also in the Ubuntu package manager.

Linux needs the package managers because it never got the "any installer will just install the software" to work technically. I don't know if they've even tried. The Linux mentality is that you can compile your stuff yourself. Nevermind that that's very inconvenient, and that this is 2010, not 1974. Wanna install a Java plug-in - how about spending a few hours debugging make files? Err... right. No thanks. They'll say but it's so easy, you just type make install foobar, and off it goes! Except that more often than not, that doesn't work and you have to go in and find what's wrong and basically debug the software before even running it once. Stupid.

I don't know here you get the notion that you can only install software in linux using only the package manager or from source ?? You can install all .deb files in Ubuntu like a .exe in windows , .rpm for RedHat . This is a .deb file which you can use to install Chromium (Google Chrome Dev) for Ubuntu if you want to test it. Download the package and just double click it, you have installed Chrome in Ubuntu .

[phpbangkok]

Hi There,

we are a web development company and use Ubuntu on all our workstations.

(Even our accountant uses Ubuntu!)

There has until now been no issue with JAVA or Eclipse or standard browsers (firefox, chrome, opera,...).

I recommend to install all "restricted plugins" which brings flash,windows fonts, etc.

Eclipse installation through Ubuntu Software center is fine. Eclipse does not work with the SUN proprietary binary JAVA engine, but it has all the dependencies correctly set so it installs the required open source version by itself.

If you need some special feature you can add them via Eclipse Plugin Manager.

After years of windows and ubuntu experience I can say that there has never been so easy PC administration and hardware compatibility like with Ubuntu.

e.g. for my PC with no special equipment there are no windows drivers downloadable for the graphic card, while ubuntu recognized everything even the printer/scanner connected through the network without additional installation CDs.

There is a new version of Ubuntu coming end of April (v10.4) which has a lot of improvements.

I installed the beta version and it looks promising (despite a few bugs which will be fixed until release).

The boot time is on a average PC (2Ghz dualcore, 2GB ram) around 10sec.

regards

Tibor

BitConstructor

[Gary A]

There are always battles between Windows users and Linux users. What amuses me more than that are the battles among Linux users themselves. There are maybe a thousand different flavor distros. If Linux lovers would get together and work for a common goal, they could likely have a much better operating system than Windows. Is it a ego thing? The Linux techies should have a huge poll and vote for which components are considered the best. After that is decided, they can all work together from there.

[kujirasan]

Ubuntu is based on Debian and usually on the Unstable version SID, (The testing one is Squeeze) the stable one is Lenny.

I just cannot understand your problem, JAVA has broad meaning, my suggestion is, just Install NetBeans, this is owned by SUN and has everything in it , if you have problem with Flash etc be more specific .

[lost_in_space]

Didn't this all start because nikster tried to install an .rpm version of java rather than a .deb on Ubuntu, and then over-reacted?

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

Anyone tried via Synaptic? I don't know why (came with ubuntu-restricted-extras or some such?) but i HAVE the Sun-Java stuff installed on my Ubuntu machines - and i never been to Sun's website. I am running Ubuntu exclusively as the one and only OS on three of my own and about 20 computers in my office and couldn't be happier with an OS. I have Windows as virtual machines in case i really need it for something specific..... but in 99.5% of such cases i find a way to get it done in Ubuntu itself.

Kind regards.....

Thanh

[A_Traveller]

A Ubuntu questions I guess?

Just installed the current 64bit version on a system. Ran all the package updates, added VLC. Then copied a couple of HD files [1080p & 720p] to play. Was prompted in one case to add 264 support which I did. Then welcome to Stutter is Us.

The files play perfectly on a 32bit Vista Home Premium set-up. Thoughts?

Vista machine

4 core CPU, 4 GB RAM, nVidia 8500GT

Ubuntu machine

4 core CPU 4 Gb RAM nVidia GF240 [Note this is using the proprietary driver set from nVidia installed through the update process]

Regards

Edited April 10, 2010 by A_Traveller

[meadish_sweetball]

Try some other distros perhaps; when I asked around I found that many experienced Linux users would recommend Mandriva or Linux Mint for newbies, rather than Ubuntu. In their opinion Ubuntu's strength was mostly in their marketing more than anything else.

For what it's worth, I now run Mandriva 2010 autumn with KDE 4 and am very happy with that.If you need help with anything there's a sizable Mandriva user community.