Ubuntu @ 1440x900 resolution in Parallels

I’ve installed Ubuntu 6.10 and thought I’d give some input on it.

Bugs and Caveats

1. Allocate 512MB RAM
   Now I don’t know if this is an isolated case, but for some reason, I can only install (and run) properly with 512MB RAM allocated, going 768MB wont let the live CD boot, or make your OS boot (in case you have adjusted it after the fact).
2. No splash page
   The splash page has been disabled by default for some reason. You can bring it back after doing the following modifications after the installation. Suffice to say, it really sucks because Ubuntu isn’t officially “supported” in Parallels, so every bit of visual indicators are helpful.
3. Limited max resolution
   The default installation only lets you go to up to 1024x768 if I’m not mistaken, whatever the case may be, it definitely doesn’t go as high as the native resolutions of the MBs and MBPs. Fortunately you can fix this after installing.
4. Shutdown doesn’t play nice with Parallels Parallels doesn’t have any way of detecting when the Ubuntu virtual session has ended… leaving a blank screen. While you can check if the hard disk icon to decide whether it’s safe or not to click the stop button, I’d suggest enabling the splash screen, as it also shows a shutdown progress bar at the end.
5. Large relative disk image size - I compared my three base installs of XP, Vista and Ubuntu.
   1. A base install of Vista took up 8.5GB out of the 16GB allocated - its Parallels image was 5.5GB
   2. A base install of XP took up 3.2GB out of the 8GB allocated - its Parallels image was about the same (3.2GB)
   3. A base install of Ubuntu took up 2.8GB out of the 8GB allocated - its Parallels images was 5.3GB! - what gives!?

Anyways, enough of that, lets get to the part where I can actually contribute something helpful

Enabling the splash screen

The splash screen problem can be solved by editing /boot/grub/menu.lst

I prefer the gedit approach, so that’s how I’m going to tackle it.¹ But to properly have access to it, you need superuser privileges - so launch the Terminal application and type:

sudo gedit /boot/grub/menu.lst

Which should promptly launch gedit on the said file with the ability to modify/save it. Look for the line that says:

kernel    /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-10-generic root=/dev/hda1 ro quiet splash

And change it to:

kernel    /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-10-generic root=/dev/hda1 ro quiet splash vga=792

Setting a higher resolution

Fire up the Terminal application and type in:

sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg

This will bring you to a nice old-school GUI, reminiscent of the early “visual” DOS days.² The menu item VESA would be highlighted. Resist temptation to move it to the VGA option and click VESA like you should, because that’s what’s going to affect your OS resolution. Tick on the boxes of the resolutions you want active and exit when you’re done. Exiting the interface saves your changes automatically.

More caveats

It is worth mentioning at this point that whenever you run that GUI to edit, you’ll always reset the settings - meaning the options you have ticked before will be unticked once more. You’ll just have to reset it again.

Another concern is that Ubuntu will always use the highest resolution available. I don’t know if there’s a way to make any setting “sticK” but from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t matter if you have one or multiple selections, it will always choose the one, highest resolution available.

Commentary

First of all, I’m not impressed. Coming from a Windows perspective, I may see the potential Ubuntu has (or dare I say Linux in general) - especially if you take into consideration those visual enhancement packages available (XGL and the like).

From a Mac perspective however, the only reason I can see people considering this over OSX is because of budget constraints. Simply put, if money were taken out of the equation, there is no way in hell (or heaven) that Linux can be considered as an alternative to OSX. In any way!

Here are a few reasons - few, but very good reasons nonetheless.

The creative side

This is probably the most delicate aspect that people have debated about. The whole form/function. We have different schools of discipline butting heads over what is “better” for society. Some people would like resource efficiency, some like robust tweakability, some people want eye candy, others like simple, straightforward useability.

The right answer however would be a balance of everything.

However when it comes to Linux development, I often cringe at how bad these people are with regards to design. Sure they got their XGL/Beryls; their uber wobbly windows and effects, but from a user interface standpoint, they’re still crap.

The sad truth is while Apple certainly may focus on eye-candy more than usual, that doesn’t mean that they’re lousy developers. OS X running on a rock solid BSD while being able to perform that way is a testament to that. And all the consumers appreciate their efforts on HIG³

Linux on the other hand, clearly doesn’t have a hint of design-taste at all! The fact that even Windows (who we all know aren’t known for their design skills) tends to look better than any flavor Linux distribution is a clear indicator that these guys are obviously programmer-centric in their design decisions.

Whoever says that visual appeal isn’t important this day in age obviously is still living in the past. I remember being a PalmOS user once, and the reasons we’d always give for justifying not switching to PocketPC were: because PocketPC was just eye-candy, or that the palm PalmOS was “simple” enough to do the tasks efficiently.

We all realize though that contrary to popular belief (and speaking from experience), PocketPCs are just as stable as any other handheld OS - specifically, any other handheld OS is just as buggy as the PocketPC. They all level out in the end… and who wins usually - the one that looks better, and the one that can give more features.

Suffice to say I eventually switched as well… and we all know that PocketPC has long since overtaken PalmOS in the handheld market.

Comparing Kernels is useless

Under the hood, they are all descendants of UNIX - so that negates the whole debate of which “kernel” is better. I’d say they have the same potential if properly configured. OS X’s BSD-ish kernel already proves that it would be as rock solid as any linux distro you can throw at it.

I have no doubt in my mind that if OS X were free (and installable in any machine), then all LAMP⁴ server setups in the world today would instead be MAMP⁵.

Maturity

Mac OSX is much more mature way of leveraging performance and user-experience than any operating system I’ve seen. Even if people claim that Linux is “relatively new,” and will mature, I simply can’t see them catching up. While Linux “matures” so to speak, so will every other OS known to man… especially OSX. Unless Apple miraculously drops the ball on innovation, how on earth would it be possible for it to lose to Linux?

Value for money

Apple hardware prices have become very competitive lately. At the rate things are going, I will not be surprised if it comes to a point where it would be an undeniable fact that Apple would be the better choice for every consumer as far as “hardware value” goes.

When that time comes, everyone who has a clue will be getting Macs, and since all Macs ship with free copies of OSX, why bother installing an inferior OS on it?

Free can only get you so far (for now)

Mac applications are simply better. Unfortunately this also has something to do with premium payment. While the whole open-source era is extremely admirable. As a human being trying to get along in life, you can’t expect everyone truly and utterly selfless - dedicating all of their blood, sweat and tears for no personal gain.

Again, this isn’t to say that there aren’t people like that. But the real geniuses realize their potential and [unfortunately] are smart enough to quite literally, capitalize on their strength.

These are the types of people who create Adobe Photoshop, the type of people who create ProTools, or any other kick-ass paid software. The reason they can claim payment, is because they believe that their product is better than the rest - so much better that they can require a premium for it, and they’re usually right.⁶

Sure you can edit with GIMP, you can even come up with amazing results with it… but do you honestly think you’d prefer using GIMP over Photoshop if you had the chance? I’m not saying that the GIMPs or Ardours are worthless compared to the Photoshops and Protools - I’m just saying that the former are clearly inferior to the latter.

There’s a famous photography mantra that goes: “It’s not the camera, but the Photographer that makes a picture.” While true, there still is some cases where the hardware will make a difference - which I summarize in the form of a question:

But if you have Photographers of the same level/skill, who ultimately will give the better output? The one with the point and shoot, or the one with the DSLR?

This logic can be applied anywhere - and when applied in the realm of operating systems, one begins to wonder why anyone in their right mind would want to use Linux on their Apple machine which already comes with OS X?³ Of course I mean to say other than the fact that they’re looking for free/open source alternatives - which quite frankly has become more of an issue of principle rather than practicality.

Given the fact that Ubuntu is widely accepted as the best best-looking/easiest to use distro out there since Debian, then I guess I could say that Ubuntu could be considered as the best candidate to represent the Linux family for the general user/consumer.

Having said that, the so called “best” they could offer can’t hold a candle against Apple.

post updated on July 31, 2008 @ 10:31AM