Switching to Linux: Q&A

[JustSayNoToStatism]

We can devote this thread to helping people switch from Windows to Linux. How to prepare for it, things to consider when planning, etc.
I'll start:

Q: Do I need to go through my drive and rename all files so that there are no spaces? (I ask because that would be a month long project)

Edit: To clarify and provide some background, I was playing around with a version of Damn Small Linux, and it automatically replaced spaces with "\n" or something like that. I'm wondering if I should manually edit everything to prevent that, or if Ubuntu will automatically convert spaces to underscores (which would be acceptable to me).

[xphoenix]

Spaces in file (including directory) names in Linux should not be a problem.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Thanks xphoenix.

One other thing is that I only want to do the install once if possible. Are there any fancy security measures I might decide to do down the line that would be easier up front? Say I want to make the linux partition of the hard drive where it would take 10 years to brute force. Is this something I need to take care of before I install, or can I figure that out afterwards? Has anyone done serious encryption like that before?

[braindead0]

Thanks xphoenix.

One other thing is that I only want to do the install once if possible. Are there any fancy security measures I might decide to do down the line that would be easier up front? Say I want to make the linux partition of the hard drive where it would take 10 years to brute force. Is this something I need to take care of before I install, or can I figure that out afterwards? Has anyone done serious encryption like that before?

Nearly all security related issues will be operational in nature, for example updating often.

As far as encryption (presumably that's what you're talking about with the 10 years to brute force comment).  There isn't any real reason to encrypt the entire HD.  I believe Ubuntu gives you the option to encrypt your home directories (which is where you should have your files anyway).  If you make sure to use a very strong password, I believe the home directory encryption would be sufficient. 

However you will also want to wipe or encrypt your tmp directory and possibly var as well otherwise information leakage can be a problem. 

Security is a huge area covering many things, you'll need to educate yourself.

[Aegidius]

As far as I know, full system encryption would have to be done during installation.  Whether you want to encrypt the system, though, depends on how you're going to use it.  System encryption is only useful if your machine is off when the enemy gains access to it.  Now, if your computer is off most of the time you're not using it, that may be just fine for you.  Mine is on 24/7 since it's the household fileserver, so that's a pretty unattractive option from my perspective.  Encryption of a drive or partition, too, will only protect you if it's not mounted at the time your machine is seized.  I'd lean towards encrypting sensitive documents on an individual basis, but there's no reason you can't do both.  There's no harm in doing a system encryption if there's any chance it'll help you.  

According to Ubuntu's wiki:

There is an option during the ubuntu installation to encrypt the disk you install to. This is probably the easiest way to use this as it's completely integrated and transparent.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FullDiskEncryptionHowto

From what I'm reading this is only available on the "alternate" install disk with the text-based installer (normally it's a gui).

As far as spaces in filenames, xphoenix is correct that they won't cause the system any problems.  They are, however, very slightly inconvenient to use from the command line.

Say I want to open my file in the text editor called "nano", I'd type

Code:

$ nano file_with_underscores

and it'd be fine, but

Code:

$ nano file with spaces

would try to open a file named "file", and in this case create it if it didn't exist.

The solution would be

Code:

$ nano "file with spaces"

or

Code:

$ nano file\ with\ spaces

which really isn't that big a deal, but it's enough to deter me from putting spaces in filenames.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Thanks everyone. I'll be borrowing an external hard drive from a friend as soon as I can, and I'll use that opportunity to do the switch. I'll let you know how it goes.

[braindead0]

Bear in mind that most *nix filesystems are case sensitive..  That can cause weird problems if you're dual booting or accessing files via windows.  Just something to watch out for.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Bear in mind that most *nix filesystems are case sensitive..  That can cause weird problems if you're dual booting or accessing files via windows.  Just something to watch out for.

With my current setup 90% Windows 10% Linux, I can't access anything from Ubuntu via Windows. However, Ubuntu is able to see everything on Windows.

[Aegidius]

Yeah, windows doesn't know what to make of ext filesystems, but Linux is just fine with ntfs.  I've heard there's some software you can install on windows to fix that, if you need to.

[braindead0]

Yeah, windows doesn't know what to make of ext filesystems, but Linux is just fine with ntfs.  I've heard there's some software you can install on windows to fix that, if you need to.

You can also format a filesystem fat32 on the *nix side and then windows can access that without any problem.  NTFS access from linux can be somewhat problematic if you want write access.  I don't think any of the current solutions consider NTFS write access to be production quality.. however fat32/vfat is well supported and stable.

[BobRobertson]

Q: Do I need to go through my drive and rename all files so that there are no spaces?

No. Linux handles spaces in name just fine, especially the GUIs, where you're selecting with the pointer anyway, rather than typing.

The only thing you have to do with spaces is use the backslash "\" on the command line when you want to specify that the character that follows is to be taken as part of the filename, rather than as a separation between elements in the command.

Edit: To clarify and provide some background, I was playing around with a version of Damn Small Linux, and it automatically replaced spaces with "\n" or something like that. I'm wondering if I should manually edit everything to prevent that, or if Ubuntu will automatically convert spaces to underscores (which would be acceptable to me).

That DSL change is exactly what should happen. You'll notice that in Windows, on the command line, files with spaces in their names get quotes around them in order to accomplish the same goal.

On some of the other questions,

Encryption: Full Disk must be done when the disk is initially formatted. Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu and others will ask if that is what you want to do during the initial installation.

You can encrypt separate partitions, other disks, directories, and files, "on the go" using many different tools.

Personally, I have found that there is little to no difference in function to the user of encrypted file systems, so don't worry about that. I like using GPG on particular files rather than full disk, mostly because my "threat level" is so very low. The Feds already track my bank account, credit card, phone use.

Security: Using a rolling distribution, such as Debian Sid, or sticking with one "stable" distribution for its lifetime, again like Debian Stable, gives the best results for security updates. I don't particularly like Ubuntu because Ubuntu tries to keep updating in huge jumps rather than incremental steps, but it does so too quickly. The Debian Stable method is also huge jumps, but done far less often.

If I sound like a Debian fanboi, it's no surprise. My first Debian install was 1995, my latest was Thursday last week.

[Aegidius]

Security: Using a rolling distribution, such as Debian Sid, or sticking with one "stable" distribution for its lifetime, again like Debian Stable, gives the best results for security updates. I don't particularly like Ubuntu because Ubuntu tries to keep updating in huge jumps rather than incremental steps, but it does so too quickly. The Debian Stable method is also huge jumps, but done far less often.

I'm a huge fan of rolling release, but quit on Debian Wheezy when the updates kept breaking my system.  I assumed Sid would be worse as far as that goes, but maybe I was wrong?  I did like Debian quite a bit when it was working.  Squeeze is, of course, wonderfully stable but horrifyingly outdated.  Even some of the backports are quite old.  Squeeze is probably a great choice for an enterprise computer where security and stability are more important than versatility.

Some other rolling release distributions are LMDE (http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php) and Arch (http://www.archlinux.org/).  LMDE is basically a polished version of Debian testing (right now dubbed Wheezy) with a lot of GUI stuff meant to be newbie-friendly.  It was actually one of the first distributions I tried, but I switched away from it after breaking it with my own inept tinkering (I'm almost certain now that it wasn't the distribution's fault).  I didn't use it for nearly as long as Wheezy, so I can't speak about its stability with confidence, but I think they test the Wheezy packages before passing them along.  Arch is my favorite and currently on all of my machines.  I've never had any crashes or stability issues on arch, and its packages are always very up-to-date.  Anyone who installs Arch, especially a Linux novice, should be prepared to spend a great deal of time on their wiki (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide).  The default Arch install is only the bare minimum Linux system, so you have to do a great deal of package installation and configuration, but this means that when you're done you have no bloat on your system; it is fully customized to your needs and preferences.  Arch is what you make it, nothing more and nothing less.  

[Tear-Down-the-Wall]

Are we talking Ubuntu?

There are so many different kinds of Linux. The main one I worked with mostly is Red Hat.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Random thoughts/status update:

Ubuntu tries to be the best of both worlds: a linux experience but also very easy to use. Let's consider both points.

Linux experience: Some, but not so much. After I learned the most basic UNIX commands, Ubuntu stopped being the learning tool I was looking for. Why? I didn't need to do hardly anything on the Terminal. With Ubuntu, I haven't learned how to mount and unmount drives (auto), I won't learn anything about internet connection (auto), etc. For many people, that's great. But I think part of the fun should be true understanding. If you don't care to learn how any of it works, then you would only care about ease of use (see next).

Ease of Use: Easier than most linux distros. In fact, getting help with Ubuntu is easier than getting help with Windows, due to the forum communities. For most people, who want to use email, internet, word processing, the simplest spreadsheet functions (but not all of them), maybe even sound file conversion, Ubuntu is great. Why pay for Microsoft when you don't get anything extra? Yet (and I'll probably get flamed for this), Windows is simpler for doing things beyond that. Compare setting up an Eclipse Java DE in Windows and Ubuntu.
windows: jre comes included, download jdk, and then eclipse (automatically works with jdk). Double click and run.
ubuntu: jre comes included, download jdk, download eclipse (from software center)....doesn't work. It's still not able to create a new java project. So I go to eclipse's site, download some add-on suitable for linux, and I get a directory filled with a bunch of files, and since I don't know (or care to know) the inner workings of eclipse, I don't know what to do with it.
Yeah, it's possible to find forums and documentation to figure it out, but it's NOT easier. And when I finally find the answer online, it's usually just copying and pasting some commands that I don't fully understand, so I don't learn anything out of it either.
Also, Windows has one of the most useful free text editors ever made: Notepad++. I wanted to get something close to it (useful for HTML, CSS, PHP, etc). I looked through the software center, downloaded one program, and it was so buggy it didn't work. I tried gedit (comes included), and it was so slow in response to my typing that I threw a fit.

My conclusion is that Ubuntu tries to straddle the line, and ends up doing a good job of both (suitable for most users), but an excellent job of neither (unsuitable for people with certain needs).

@Tear-Down-the-Wall:
I think I'll be doing a 50/50 split of my drive, where Windows is for ease of use and productivity (Excel, coding, etc) and Linux is just for experimentation/learning.
You mentioned RedHat. I was considering centOS. Even if it's not usually for personal computing, I think that if learning is the primary goal, it's a good one (fewer pre-installed, automatic things). In your experience, how well do skills picked up in the RHEL family transfer to the Debian family and vice versa? (assuming you've used both). From what I've read, it's just the packaging and package manager that's the main difference (rpm vs deb, yum vs apt-get).

[MAM]

Random thoughts/status update:

Ubuntu tries to be the best of both worlds: a linux experience but also very easy to use. Let's consider both points.

Linux experience: Some, but not so much. After I learned the most basic UNIX commands, Ubuntu stopped being the learning tool I was looking for. Why? I didn't need to do hardly anything on the Terminal. With Ubuntu, I haven't learned how to mount and unmount drives (auto), I won't learn anything about internet connection (auto), etc. For many people, that's great. But I think part of the fun should be true understanding. If you don't care to learn how any of it works, then you would only care about ease of use (see next).

Ease of Use: Easier than most linux distros. In fact, getting help with Ubuntu is easier than getting help with Windows, due to the forum communities. For most people, who want to use email, internet, word processing, the simplest spreadsheet functions (but not all of them), maybe even sound file conversion, Ubuntu is great. Why pay for Microsoft when you don't get anything extra? Yet (and I'll probably get flamed for this), Windows is simpler for doing things beyond that. Compare setting up an Eclipse Java DE in Windows and Ubuntu.
windows: jre comes included, download jdk, and then eclipse (automatically works with jdk). Double click and run.
ubuntu: jre comes included, download jdk, download eclipse (from software center)....doesn't work. It's still not able to create a new java project. So I go to eclipse's site, download some add-on suitable for linux, and I get a directory filled with a bunch of files, and since I don't know (or care to know) the inner workings of eclipse, I don't know what to do with it.
Yeah, it's possible to find forums and documentation to figure it out, but it's NOT easier. And when I finally find the answer online, it's usually just copying and pasting some commands that I don't fully understand, so I don't learn anything out of it either.
Also, Windows has one of the most useful free text editors ever made: Notepad++. I wanted to get something close to it (useful for HTML, CSS, PHP, etc). I looked through the software center, downloaded one program, and it was so buggy it didn't work. I tried gedit (comes included), and it was so slow in response to my typing that I threw a fit.

My conclusion is that Ubuntu tries to straddle the line, and ends up doing a good job of both (suitable for most users), but an excellent job of neither (unsuitable for people with certain needs).

@Tear-Down-the-Wall:
I think I'll be doing a 50/50 split of my drive, where Windows is for ease of use and productivity (Excel, coding, etc) and Linux is just for experimentation/learning.
You mentioned RedHat. I was considering centOS. Even if it's not usually for personal computing, I think that if learning is the primary goal, it's a good one (fewer pre-installed, automatic things). In your experience, how well do skills picked up in the RHEL family transfer to the Debian family and vice versa? (assuming you've used both). From what I've read, it's just the packaging and package manager that's the main difference (rpm vs deb, yum vs apt-get).

Yes somethings are harder, but you know what you are getting. I don't know much about Ubuntu but it is pretty similar to Debian, also for programing needs get Cream. In the beginning it will be frustrating but learning anything new is hard. Doing somethings in Windoze may be easier but doing others is harder. There are many many examples coming from each side.