Submitted by Work has begun on a Windows-based installer for Ubuntu. “The aim of this installer is to provide an easier way for a Windows user to install Ubuntu without having to know how to burn a CD .iso, set the BIOS to boot from CD, repartition the disks, set up a multiboot system, etc. It will not replace any of the current Ubuntu installation options, and will not require that Windows is installed prior to the installation of Ubuntu.” Update: Screenshots.
“will not require that Windows is installed prior to the installation of Ubuntu.”
erm, but surely if it runs on windows then it pretty much requires just that, or did i miss something?
It will not replace any of the current Ubuntu installation options, and will not require…
Confusing wording? Maybe. I think the intent was to say that since the other installers still exist, you don’t need to have Windows just to install Ubuntu. This is an additional installer option. (Seemed obvious to me)
Well, I read it the same way. As it is, I thought “will not require that Windows is installed” was still referring to ‘it’ [the Windows installer].
Perhaps it would make sense worded this way: “The Windows Installer is an additional installation method, and will not replace any of the current Ubuntu installation options.”
Oh, and as for people wondering why the Ubuntu people are doing this, it’s just another way to lower the barriers. Since major OEMs are still all Windows for whatever reason, they have to find ways to make it easier to get Linux onto people’s computers.
Yeah, there are arguments that it’ll generate a whole influx of seriously confused people who have no idea what they’re doing (a lot of them are probably seriously confused by Windows, too), but the argument seems awfully elitist to me. In a way, it sounds like the arguments that people shouldn’t be allowed to use Linux if they don’t want to learn CSH scripting.
There’s a lot more voodoo involved in setting up partitions and multiboot and so on, than just using Gnome. This basically reduces the danger of wiping out Windows, so there’s a safety net.
WHY???
Because ~90% of the world runs Windows. So… why not?
Because it allows people to try out Linux without having to do any risky partitioning. They can use it just like a normal install too, unlike live cds which run a lot slower and don’t allow you to save stuff (there are exceptions but they’re all a bit hackish).
It also facilitates staying with Linux once they’ve tried it. “If it’s already installed and I like it, maybe I’ll just keep using it!”
Moreover I have to ask, why are you asking ‘why?’?
It appears that Ubunutu are being realistic (as usual). Most people use Windows, not a lot of people actually know how to boot onto a CD (you would genuinely be supprised). Ubuntu is therefore thinking about the reality of the situation. Other distros are somewhat elitest and refuse to touch Windows, expecting the user to know everything needed to install their Distro (including text mode navigation). Ubunutu are leading the way with “getting real” about Linux.
This is a good thing. I was glad when I read this , because the barriers of entry to using linux are continously being lowered. And this, I have to say ,is a new low ,
But one might still ask the question, will making it THIS easy to install linux really be helpful to a user who can’t really burn their own .iso, think about it, once you plunge them into the Linux World who is going to help them along the way. For this strategy to be robust the desktop top environment they find themselves in has to have enough guides/help avaailable, to get them doing the tasks they enjoyed so much in Windows. ….
I don’t think this is much of a problem with current GNOME or KDE.
But one might still ask the question, will making it THIS easy to install linux really be helpful to a user who can’t really burn their own .iso, think about it, once you plunge them into the Linux World who is going to help them along the way.
Exactly. Who is going to tell them how to get to all the music they ripped and locked into iTunes which is now on another partition? Who is going to tell them how to type ‘mkdir /mnt/bla && mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/bla’ to get to some files on their usb flash drive?
I thought this was neat too, but then I had the same thought as you. If you’re not competent to install Linux using the other available methods, you’re probably not competent to do anything useful in it besides browse the web once you install it with the windows installer.
Not bashing Linux, but as crappy as Windows is, its just sad that Linux hasn’t been able to pick it up in the past 10 years. Seriously, windows hasn’t changes in 10 years and Still Linux didn’t catch up.
I think this will be very helpful for other OS’s such as Haiku, syllable and skyos.
<< Who is going to tell them how to type ‘mkdir /mnt/bla && mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/bla’ to get to some files on their usb flash drive? >>
Curiously, I don’t have to do that. It automounts.
Did yours automount out of the box or did you have to set it up to do so?
In setting it up, did you have to edit text files or was there a graphical option to auto mount your removable media?
Just worked out of the box.
I recently bought one of those cheap mp3 players that also double as usb stick and guess what? In Windows i only could access it through windows media player and all their drm crap (and i even couldn’t use it as usb stick), but in linux it auto mounted as a usb stick, i could load the files i wanted, how i wanted. And, yes, amarok let me access it as mp3 player.
Who would have thought, much easier and better with linux.
Edited 2007-01-18 18:12
“Exactly. Who is going to tell them how to get to all the music they ripped and locked into iTunes which is now on another partition? Who is going to tell them how to type ‘mkdir /mnt/bla && mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/bla’ to get to some files on their usb flash drive?”
Interesting. You have not needed to do that for a couple of years at least, as USB drives are auto-mounted, just like on Windows, so the user will not need to know anything different for that. Windows partitions are auto-mounted as well during install. Please use a newer distribution then Redhat 5.2
Personally I like PCLinuxOS and Kbuntu. Both are as good if not in some aspects better then XP.
Hi,
Must not be aware of this site. It does a nice enough install. You still need to know repartition the disks, set up a multi boot system, etc.
paul
http://www.instalinux.com/
Welcome to Instalinux
This is a simple, easy way to install Linux. You follow the steps in the System Designer to choose from a bunch of different distributions and versions of Linux, and to choose what software you want included. The final product will be a fairly small ISO image (30 MB or less) that you can burn to a CD and boot from. It will automatically build your system for you, pulling what it needs from the network mirror you selected, while you sit back and relax.
Ready to give it a try? Great – Let’s Get Started
Don’t have a spare machine to try it on? No Problem!
Still Confused? Give this a read.
* very simple to use
* provide a no-risk installation
* no repartitioning the hard disk
* no changing the windows boot loader
* Easy uninstallation.
* Low risk
* Doesn’t use a virtual machine
* Doesn’t significantly reduce performance of the resulting installation
* Resulting installation supports everything a normal install does.
* Fast install
Item #3 very clearly says “no repartitioning the hard disk” – this has been optional in the Ubuntu installer as long as I can remember (you can simply follow the recommended defaults if you don’t understand).
You got it!
Item #3 very clearly says “no repartitioning the hard disk” – this has been optional in the Ubuntu installer as long as I can remember (you can simply follow the recommended defaults if you don’t understand).
Correct me if I misunderstood: If you’re referring to the installer shipped with the standard distro, following the defaults craps all the data you could have in your disk. If we think that the average user will try to install Ubuntu keeping the Windows partition/s, that’s a complete disaster. And NTFS has been really supported since very recently, so there’s no way I’ll let any linux installer resize a NTFS partition.
I think this is a great idea: It’s somewhat like a LiveCD without the performace reduction. It reminds me of the BeOS PE.
I don’t recall what the defaults are in the standard Ubuntu installers and I haven’t run Windows in ages, so I certainly can’t comment on how it deals with a pre-existing Windows install. However, I’ve become fairly well impressed by Ubuntu of late and can only imagine that an installer designed for someone who is familiar with Windows and likely not familiar with Linux (perhaps I’m assuming here) will not be blindly wiping out any pre-existing Windows (or otherwise) installations by default.
I could have sworn that when another OS installation pre-exists, the Ubuntu installers (the traditional ones) will default to either using available free space or opting to resize existing partitions. Again, it’s been awhile and I don’t generally follow defaults, so I could be mistaken.
Also, didn’t BeOS PE run in a type of loop-mounted filesystem within a file? I would assume this venture by Ubuntu is more of a full-blown physical installation (ie, new partitions, etc.). And as a previous comment by me stated, this is far better than a LiveCD since it makes it far easier for the user to continue using it if they like it since it’s actually installed on their machine.
If it does format then it definitely doesn’t do it without a big loud warning first.
In terms of NTFS. This doesn’t do any NTFS resizing, it creates an EXT3 filesystem as a file on your existing NTFS partition, and loop mounts it. So there’s very little risk to your NTFS partition. I should have thought that even if NTFS-3G did crap out, the most you’re likely to lose is the loop-mounted file.
If it does format then it definitely doesn’t do it without a big loud warning first.
In terms of NTFS. This doesn’t do any NTFS resizing, it creates an EXT3 filesystem as a file on your existing NTFS partition, and loop mounts it. So there’s very little risk to your NTFS partition. I should have thought that even if NTFS-3G did crap out, the most you’re likely to lose is the loop-mounted file.
You’re completely right, you only missed that I was talking about the standard, cd-based Ubuntu installer, not the Windows-based one. That’s why I said:
I think this is a great idea: It’s somewhat like a LiveCD without the performace reduction. It reminds me of the BeOS PE.
Because you can play with an almost standard system without the livecd performance penalty and without the risk of detroying the data on your hd. If you *really* mess up things, the worst you can suffer is losing the data inside the Ubuntu image.
Edited 2007-01-17 12:21
I’m sorry, I mis-read your post.
It reminds me of the BeOS PE.
And this installer works like BeOS – it downloads a big disk image file, puts it somewhere and mounts that file as a disk during boot. No repartitioning and etc is needed. Whole Ubuntu simply lives inside one file.
If you’re referring to the installer shipped with the standard distro, following the defaults craps all the data you could have in your disk.
This seems to be the behavior with most distros, and it always strikes me as a terrible idea. It’s my #1 reason for not giving out Linux install discs to pretty much anyone. LiveCDs are another matter. This Ubuntu thing seems like a great idea.
If you’re referring to the installer shipped with the standard distro, following the defaults craps all the data you could have in your disk.
This seems to be the behavior with most distros, and it always strikes me as a terrible idea. It’s my #1 reason for not giving out Linux install discs to pretty much anyone. LiveCDs are another matter. This Ubuntu thing seems like a great idea.
If you’re worried about that then you’d better not advise anyone else to reinstall Windows, either, since Windows is even less tolerant of data already on the disk.
Its one saving grace is that the last time it complained, it completely failed to do what it said it was going to do and delete the partitions. I have to admit, on that occasion its utter crappiness was a life-saver.
You’d install BeOS through a Windows based installation routine and you’d be able to start BeOS from within Linux or Windows 98 (Windows 2K was far trickier since the GUI bits didn’t work) and it’d then reboot into a sort of disk image a’la Virtual PC, which would then increase it’s size according to use, eliminating the need for partitioning the hard drive.
The Ubuntu strategy is somewhat different, relying on partitioning of the hard drive and traditional dual booting as opposed to the disk image like strategy chosen by Be, Inc.
this would be better for BeOS because one of its attractions was bootup time and if you had to boot windows first before BeOS…well so much for that.
And NTFS has been really supported since very recently, so there’s no way I’ll let any linux installer resize a NTFS partition.
Non-destructive NTFS resize has been available for a good while, and is both stable and secure. I’ve never had any problems resizing a NTFS partition with tools such as qtparted.
good idea for people to get started, think people will be less scared of losing their windows!
/*”The aim of this installer is to provide an easier way for a Windows user to install Ubuntu without having to know how to burn a CD .iso, set the BIOS to boot from CD, repartition the disks, set up a multiboot system, etc.*/
Is this what they think the reason is why the Windows uses are not installing ubnuntu? It never stops to amuse how these Linux guys don’t get the message that over 90% of the world, simply, don’t want to run linux, they are happy running windows.
So making it easier to try an alternative is a waste of time because a lot of people don’t want to try an alternative?
What about the people that do want to? You seem to be assuming that the only purpose of improving Linux is to wrest 100% market share from MS. Maybe people just want to provide an alternative to those that want it?
No no…
The biggest problem with Linux is 90% of it’s apps are also natively available on Windows. KDE 4 apps are next. The last 9% percent works with Cygwin and SFU. So only about 1% of Linux apps are exclusive to that platform.
Most people don’t use operating systems; they only care about the apps that run on them.
The FOSS community needs to stop supporting Windows and make it extremely difficult for any apps to run on Windows, except through virtualization. Then begin developing the killer apps that could drive platform adoption.
If that means more closed-source apps then so be it.
Understand?
Edited 2007-01-17 18:28
freedom and choices may be hard to understand but that is what linux is all about. not yet another plan to lock people in. Otherwise you might as well get a mac or stay with windows.
No no no…
90% of the world simply doesn’t care about operating systems in general, and that’s Linux biggest handicap right now, second only to the inexistence of next generation games. Other then that, it’s just inertia…
This installer is a step forward because it enables just about everybody who has ever heard about Linux to install it as though it was an application, easily and with no strings attached. Don’t like it? Well, uninstall it then… It’s just another application.
If they find a way to install it with AIGLX/XGL enabled by default I’m sure it’s gonna be quite a shocker and lot’s of people are going to open their eyes.
He’s right you know.
I never thought of it before, but this guy just made it all crystal clear for me.
Nobody is using Linux, nobody wants to. I’m shutting down now to reformat my hard drive, because the official word is in. Nobody wants Linux at all.
So long people, it was a nice try, but we all have to go and start hacking on Windows now, because NOBODY USES LINUX at all.
You heard it here first from some dick called happycamper, who is apparently the ultimate authority on alternative OSes.
The linux Bootcamp.
I was just thinking the same ting. Bootcamp makes it easy to install Windows on a Intel Mac. I haven’t seen any reasons why I should do it, but a friend at work just did it, and it was great. I think it’s a very good thing when people copy good ideas from eachother. Takes the world further ahead.
I think this is great.
a no risk and painless install is perfect for people that has fears reagarding a new install (If the uninstall works perfectly).
later, if the user really appreciates ubuntu and wants the benefits of zn ext/3 install the program should be able import the programs and /home to create the same install.
windows based installer?,,first we had Novel making an agreement with microsoft.. has Ubuntu followed in there footsteps?
No; Novell tie themselves up with contracts and licenses, whilst Ubunutu just keep going at their own pace in their chosen direction. There is no correlation between the two, even if they cross paths now and again.
/*No; Novell tie themselves up with contracts and licenses, whilst Ubunutu just keep going at their own pace in their chosen direction. There is no correlation between the two, even if they cross paths now and again*/
how do you know? I’ll will also give my opinion. I will say yes, they have.
how do you know? I’ll will also give my opinion. I will say yes, they have.
This is not a deal with MS
This is a community effort by an individual developer not yet part of the official Ubuntu project.
Most FOSS supporters and Ubuntu users have welcomed as a way of winning more converts from Windows.
So either you don’t know what you are talking about or you are just a troll, in which case I guess I am wrong to feed you.
You’re an idiot…
I am running the prototype on this test machine.
Smoothe.
That’s remind me of Linux-based installer for FreeBSD.
http://www.daemonology.net/depenguinator/
If you can’t figure out how to burn an .iso than you probably shouldn’t be running linux anyways….
If you don’t care for your customers, Microsoft happily will.
If you don’t care for your customers, Microsoft happily will.
“Don’t care” is not a synonym for “shaft”.
I completely agree. Anybody who wants to try Linux without waiting for a delivery or buying a CD ABSOLUTELY MUST:
1) Have a spare recordable CD
2) Have a CD drive which can burn CDs
3) Follow instructions to download and burn an iso
If they can’t do these things, they shouldn’t use linux. Obviously.
Some people live 100 miles away from the nearest shop that sells blank CDs.
Can’t they just wait for a OLPC XO?
Poor bastards, no phone, no ups or fed-ex or snail mail package delivery, where in that cave are they supposed to plug the computer in anyway?
Exactly! If they can’t be bothered to figure out how to burn CD’s, they probably can’t be bothered to change Operating systems from the one that came preinstalled on their PC.
Eh, let people experiment. They may get a bad taste in their mouth when they bjork their computer but at least they’ll learn something in the process…
Besides, I think this could be a good way for people to try Ubuntu without the suckage of livecd’s (which used to really impress people, and still work on some people). It might be good for some technical users as well who understand the ramifications and also just don’t have:
1.) Extra money for a spare disk.
2.) Time to repartition their main drive for dual booting.
but if some one isn’t going to bother to look online to see how to burn an iso, what makes us think they’re going to want to learn an entire OS?
I’m not saying people shouldn’t experiment, but some people just weren’t meant for Open source
why should you have to burn a cd when you just want linux on your hard drive?
basically you’re saying open source is supposed to make things harder on purpose to keep everyone away
basically you’re saying open source is supposed to make things harder on purpose to keep everyone away
I’m just saying that if someone finds burning an ISO too difficult, they’re probably going to find linux too difficult too…
http://shots.linuxquestions.org/?linux_distribution_sm=Ubuntu%2…
Looks like they got tired of waiting for the torrent download. The screenshots only go as far as downloading the installation files.
Anyone seen screenies of the whole process?
I want to get rid of windows. Also, Topologi has had this for ages.
Lots of people want to leave Windows, but not go cold turkey, or they might want to keep Windows around for games.
Going to Linux is not always a one-way journey, I can think of friends who would use Linux 90% of the time if there was better integration between Windows and Linux.
What would be nice is if there could be a Linux distribution which
A) Synchronizes your settings, documents and media between Windows and Linux when you boot either OS
B) Install openoffice, thunderbird & firefox
C) Sets up the creature comforts like Audio & DVD codecs during install if you indicate you’re in a jurisdiction that does not allow software patents
D) Sets up NVidia, ATI and Intel accelerated drivers at install time.
E) Makes your windows files available from Linux, and your Linux files available from Windows (various solutions are available to access NTFS partitions in Linux, and an EXT2 IFS driver exists for windows)
All of these things would make it easier for people to use Linux some of the time, even if they aren’t able to completely abandon Windows.
It would also be possible to suggest replacement apps for common software in Windows and to make Wine profiles for certain windows applications like Crossover does.
Windows and Linux are not mutually exclusive, in fact (speaking as someone with two computers in front of him, one Ubuntu, one Windows) I can safely say that the two can be quite complimentary in the way that, say; Paint Shop Pro can be useful for things even if you have Photoshop installed.
You’re actually saying something that makes sense. That will not be tolerated here.
It has to stop _somewhere_. You know, if somebody in the 3rd millennium feels obliged to write a piece of software instead of telling the user to right-click the ISO file and “open with Nero (or whatever)”, which is ALL you need to burn an ISO under Windows, then this is really worrying for both, programmer and user.
I can only second: WHY ?
Lots of older computers do not have a burner installed, that’s why
not everyone has nero or even knows what it is
“(or whatever)”
you would be amazed to find your burning application listed in the “open with” menu upon right-clicking the ISO file
Because:
A) Easy way to demonstrate linux without repartitioning
B) Easy way to quickly test linux-pograms without having to have linux installed (at work or at school)
C) Getting used to linux withoud installing (or a SLOW live-cd)
Why do people keep asking why?
You forgot to mention, an easy way for Linux to circumvent Microsofts OEM deals.
Again, this has great potential as Live disks are to slow and do not do Linux desktops any justice. As long as hardware compatability for the most part is there.
Also the way Feisty is moving along, you’ll have a great desktop to show off to people.
um, and then you have get your bios to boot from a cd, go through a whole lot of settings, including the big scary one telling you will lose all your data should you go ahead, etcetera. So this is a very good thing for trying out Ubuntu.
Try and be more thoughtful.
instlux is a very similar project that was started more than one year ago, with about 50000 downloads till then. http://instlux.sourceforge.net, and translated to 20 languages.
Actually, instlux is a smaller project. Its goal is to avoid the BIOS configuration when installing linux, thus making it easier for the Windows user to migrate to linux. It does this the same way as this other project, by using GRUB4DOS.
greetings,
can it replace my small business server/exchange/sql/active directory facilities with point and click?
i dont think so…
How many regular users have a small business server/exchange/sql/active directory? This installer isn’t for you. Linux can provide alternatives for all your needs, but you have to be preprared to learn how to do it; and you off topic bluntness prooves you’re not interested in learning anything different.
Can Windows migrate my LAMP setup with dedicated MySQL slaves and my SMTP server with point and click?
No. Who cares? Normal users *employ* people to do those things.
“Can Windows migrate my LAMP setup with dedicated MySQL slaves and my SMTP server with point and click?
No. Who cares? Normal users *employ* people to do those things.”
Exactly. That’s the reason why “too comfortable to learn or think” Joe Q. Average won’t try this install. It’s because of (i) he desn’t know for what purposes it might be good, (ii) he desn’t know how to do it and (iii) he’s happy with “Windows”.
In principle, you’re right. If “Windows” would be that easy to install and adminstrate, average users would not employ experienced users to do all the tweak stuff (drivers, codecs, applications etc.). Because they are not controntated with occuring problems, they believe there are no problems.
A quote: “Why should I pay you to work on my computer?!” – read somewhere at http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/ – it’s obvious, isn’t it? If they can’t find anyone to do the work for them, the work will not be done. Some hours of solitaire instead…
Therefore, “employ” is not the correct word; “use” would be better, because the poor person who has to do the work (and gets bashed if any problem occurs, even if it’s a splash screen) won’t get anything for his work. Experienced users are expected to like to do work for others who do not have this experience.
But please don’t get me wrong: I think it’s a good idea to have this installer available for “Windows” users who don’t want to (or can’t) try a live system CD (which usually lacks speed). So it’s a possibility for those who really don’t want any “Windows” on their system can try a real alternative and see if it fits their needs.
Experienced users who run MySQL and SMTP serives surely won’t use this. Same for those who do not own a registered copy of “Windows” because they (a) can’t afford it and (b) do not have compatible hardware available.
I’m glad to see this kind of thought going into making the adoption of Linux an easier road. While many will disagree with the idea of dumbing down Linux and the path to adoption, dont forget that this is for a more beginner-oriented distribution, and will change nothing at the heart of Linux.
One problem my friend has been having is that he cannot get any LiveCD’s to load onto his computer. We’re not sure if it is a CD-ROM problem, or another hardware related issue, but this would provide another outlet for testing out Ubuntu without using his CD-ROM drive, and saves him the trouble of having to resize his Windows partition since he has a rather small hard disk (which in turn causes it to be a painful task to clear up space that is contiguous for creating a new partition).
Edited 2007-01-17 20:16
I’m assuming that there’s no way to use this setup with one of the stock Ubuntu CD’s? I would try it out, except a 600 MB download is impossible for me. I’d love to use with the Ubuntu CD’s I already have, though.
This is a great idea. The easier it is for people to try Linux, the more likely they are to give it a shot. An installation path that does everything for you, without harming your current Windows installation, is great. Successfully setting up dual boot with the current Ubuntu install is not that easy to follow for the less computer literate, and lets face it, new users are going to start off with dual boot. Then, if they find that Linux suits their needs just fine, they’ll probably just install Linux on their next machine or upgrade.
…again. This is intolerable; Ubuntu is well overdue for another non-functional Xorg server-style cockup!
There is really nothing new here. If I recall corectly, a few years ago when I learned Linux, Caldera Linux (before SCO days) let you install it inside Windows.