Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

What'll they think of next: Winbuntu?

Filed under
Ubuntu

The Ubuntu development team announced today that it is looking for testers for a new, Windows-based installer for its popular Linux distribution. The idea is to provide a simple-to-use, no-risk way to install Ubuntu in a partition on a Windows machine.

"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." the team said in the announcement on Ubuntuforums.org. "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."

More Here.

Sounds a lot like Topologilinux

In years past, Linux bootloaders gave me a lot of headaches. One computer hung when loading LILO. The next computer could use LILO, but hung with GRUB. Getting MBRs fixed is a pain, and kind of scary. (Backup? What's a backup?) So it took a while before I was brave enough to install GRUB on the next computer.

Fortunately, there was Topologilinux, which uses "GRUB for Windows" (which loads from an entry in Windows' boot.ini) and runs in a couple of loopback images from an NTFS partition. It's been around for a while and is a great way for the faint-hearted to try out Linux with low risk.

And, after that, you can start experimenting with "real" Linux installations.

I just want to point out...

I predicted this was going to happen.

__________________________________________________________________
Ubuntu is lame as a duck- not the metaphorical lame duck, but more like a real duck that hurt its leg, maybe by stepping on a land mine.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Simon Phipps on Public Domain and Facebook’s React Licence

  • Public Domain Is Not Open Source
    Open Source and Public Domain are frequently confused. Here’s why it’s a mistake to treat the two terms as synonyms. Plenty of people assume that public domain software must be open source. While it may be free software within your specific context, it is incorrect to treat public domain software as open source or indeed as globally free software. That’s not a legal opinion (I’m not a lawyer so only entitled to layman’s opinions) but rather an observation that an open source user or developer cannot safely include public domain source code in a project.
  • 5 Reasons Facebook’s React License Was A Mistake
    In July 2017, the Apache Software Foundation effectively banned the license combination Facebook has been applying to all the projects it has been releasing as open source. They are using the 3-clause BSD license (BSD-3), a widely-used OSI-approved non-reciprocal license, combined with a broad, non-reciprocal patent grant but with equally broad termination rules to frustrate aggressors. The combination represents a new open source license, which I’ve termed the “Facebook BSD Plus Patent License” (FB+PL), and to my eyes it bears the hallmarks of an attempt to be compatible with both the GPL v2 and the Apache License v2 at the same time, in circumvention of the alleged imcompatibility of those licenses.

Red Hat Shares/Stock News

AMD With Linux: AMDGPU, AMDGPU-PRO, and RadeonSI

Games for GNU/Linux