[Discussion] [Linux] Ubuntu vs eCS

[Carl Gehr]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:00:17 -0700 (PDT), David Azarewicz wrote:

>I tried Ubuntu a couple of weeks ago. I tried it out on my test system so I let 
>it wipe the disk and install itself.  It took over 2 hours to install.  Then it took 
>about 20 minutes to boot up.  Once booted, it ran sooo slooow that it was 
>unusable for me.  Everything ran ok, just very slow.  I decided it wasn't 
>useable running that slow, so I repartitioned the disk, and restored eCS back 
>on the system.  It took about 20-30 minutes to reformat and restore my 
>backups, and eCS boots in less than 60 seconds, and everything runs fast 
>and snappy, just like before. 
>
>I wanted to try Linux particularly to try out running some things I need a 
>newer Java for.  The stuff I need to run won't run on the Java we have for 
>eCS. I might try Ubuntu again when I can afford to buy more expensive 
>hardware.  My guess is that Ubuntu is much more of a resource hog than 
>eCS.

What is the hardware you are using?  I cannot imagine Ubuntu taking
that long.  It took me less than an hour to install on a USB FLASH
drive.  And, to add to the time, the install system was also a USB
FLASH.  [i.e., Instead of creating a CD, the guy that downloaded the
ISO built it on a FLASH instead of on a CD.]  Most reports on the
Ubuntu site estimate less than a half-hour from a CD to a regular HD.