Which distribution thingamajig would anyone here reccomend? Ive been hearing a lot of good things about Ubuntu and SUSE, but really, I have no clue.
And yes, I am considering switching to a Linux based system.
If I were to switch to Linux...
Moderator: Moderators
ubuntu
It's really up to your own preferences. Different distros are targeting different audiences and thus offer slightly different experiences. On top of that there are desktop environments to consider for your perference.
Gnome or KDE (The two most popular ones; don't ask which one is better you will get a flame war. I'm a Gnome user personally)
Xfce
Enlightenment
Fluxbox
and many others
Get some live CDs to try out different distros, but I would go for ubuntu or kubuntu.
http://www.ubuntu.com/ (Gnome)
http://www.kubuntu.org/ (KDE)
It's really up to your own preferences. Different distros are targeting different audiences and thus offer slightly different experiences. On top of that there are desktop environments to consider for your perference.
Gnome or KDE (The two most popular ones; don't ask which one is better you will get a flame war. I'm a Gnome user personally)
Xfce
Enlightenment
Fluxbox
and many others
Get some live CDs to try out different distros, but I would go for ubuntu or kubuntu.
http://www.ubuntu.com/ (Gnome)
http://www.kubuntu.org/ (KDE)
-
FoeOfTheBee
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 12 May 2005, 18:26
I'd like a distro that installed as easily as Windows, and was ready-to-go out of the box. Is there really such a thing, with Linux? I don't really care about the relative merits of more technically-oriented builds, frankly- I want it to be clean, stable, and user-friendly. I'm perfectly willing to pay for it, if such a thing isn't free, but I just am very scared to switch and then waste a month of my life fighting with a new OS. I have better things to do.
My friends who use Linux seem to have to mess with their builds constantly, just to get things done, and they never seem to stop having to do annoying things like looking up driver locations, when doing something as simple as INSTALLING SOFTWARE, which would totally piss me off. That's so... DOS-age. Give me something that's smarter than that- I install and try out new software on a regular basis, and I don't have time for every install to be a 15-minute time-wasting experience.
I want a machine that is ready to use, and hard to screw up too badly. I don't care about pretty interfaces- I just want it to function out of the box, and as Windows-like as possible, frankly.
Something that feels like Windows 2000 Professional, with a straightforward, uncluttered, un-visually-annoying interface would be ideal. I've seen my friends messing with all sorts of annoying crap, like folders that look like they're melting or whatever when you close them, etc.- I HATE that kind of thing, it's a waste of CPU, and one of the many reasons (along with very crappy directory structure and extremely obscure program-installation paths) why I went to Windows when OSX was introduced for Macs. I want something where I have an OS folder (with usual stuff nested in there), a programs folder (with root like the "Program Files" folder in Windows), and a desktop folder, which has lots of other stuff sub-nested within, not some gargantuan mess where some programs install to this level of this sub-directory, etc.
Does anything like this even exist for Linux users? I've looked at a few builds to see how things are looking at this point, and I still just don't see anything out there that gives me confidence that I'd be able to switch without a great deal of pain and suffering. On the other hand, I am not about to buy Vista (maybe 64 Pro, but definitely not Vista), so I need a game plan or I will be stuck in Obsolete OS Land
My friends who use Linux seem to have to mess with their builds constantly, just to get things done, and they never seem to stop having to do annoying things like looking up driver locations, when doing something as simple as INSTALLING SOFTWARE, which would totally piss me off. That's so... DOS-age. Give me something that's smarter than that- I install and try out new software on a regular basis, and I don't have time for every install to be a 15-minute time-wasting experience.
I want a machine that is ready to use, and hard to screw up too badly. I don't care about pretty interfaces- I just want it to function out of the box, and as Windows-like as possible, frankly.
Something that feels like Windows 2000 Professional, with a straightforward, uncluttered, un-visually-annoying interface would be ideal. I've seen my friends messing with all sorts of annoying crap, like folders that look like they're melting or whatever when you close them, etc.- I HATE that kind of thing, it's a waste of CPU, and one of the many reasons (along with very crappy directory structure and extremely obscure program-installation paths) why I went to Windows when OSX was introduced for Macs. I want something where I have an OS folder (with usual stuff nested in there), a programs folder (with root like the "Program Files" folder in Windows), and a desktop folder, which has lots of other stuff sub-nested within, not some gargantuan mess where some programs install to this level of this sub-directory, etc.
Does anything like this even exist for Linux users? I've looked at a few builds to see how things are looking at this point, and I still just don't see anything out there that gives me confidence that I'd be able to switch without a great deal of pain and suffering. On the other hand, I am not about to buy Vista (maybe 64 Pro, but definitely not Vista), so I need a game plan or I will be stuck in Obsolete OS Land
KDE is more windows liek and has a 'start menu' like menu at the bottom
whereas Gnome is simpler and has menus at the top and a taskbar at the bottom with little widget like things dotted around on them.
They also have their own programs that come with them.
e.g. KDE has kwrite and Kate and so on and Gnome has Gedit and so on
whereas Gnome is simpler and has menus at the top and a taskbar at the bottom with little widget like things dotted around on them.
They also have their own programs that come with them.
e.g. KDE has kwrite and Kate and so on and Gnome has Gedit and so on
Argh, installing software is usually a simple terminal command you'll memorize that can be done in a nice gui application anyway. Usually, managing software is done in a much better way than in Windows.
Of course, sometimes you'll have to compile it from source, but really, following instructions isn't the end of the world.
/Applications is where your programs go, I see nothing obscure about that
/Library is where support files for your programs go
/System is where system files are
/Users is where user homes are
I don't see much wrong with that filesystem. Linux's filesystem has a bit more folders, but there's really nothing wrong with it. You're just not used to it. Personally, I totally hate Window's filesystem.
If you want to do more than the basic stuff though, you might have problems, but that's because you're trying to do advanced stuff in an OS you don't know how to use, that's a bad idea with Windows too.
Of course, sometimes you'll have to compile it from source, but really, following instructions isn't the end of the world.
Only annoying CPU intensive crap I've ever seen on this iBook is the dock, and it has never bothered me. As for the directory structure, It's pretty nice if you don't count the hidden stuff (unlike Windows, stuff is hidden for a reason.I've seen my friends messing with all sorts of annoying crap, like folders that look like they're melting or whatever when you close them, etc.- I HATE that kind of thing, it's a waste of CPU, and one of the many reasons (along with very crappy directory structure and extremely obscure program-installation paths) why I went to Windows when OSX was introduced for Macs.
/Applications is where your programs go, I see nothing obscure about that
/Library is where support files for your programs go
/System is where system files are
/Users is where user homes are
I don't see much wrong with that filesystem. Linux's filesystem has a bit more folders, but there's really nothing wrong with it. You're just not used to it. Personally, I totally hate Window's filesystem.
You're switching to a new OS and don't want to do the best part, pain and suffering? Really though, switching to a Linux distribution is easy, install it with an easy graphical installer then use it, the programs you will need are installed by default in most distributions.Does anything like this even exist for Linux users? I've looked at a few builds to see how things are looking at this point, and I still just don't see anything out there that gives me confidence that I'd be able to switch without a great deal of pain and suffering.
If you want to do more than the basic stuff though, you might have problems, but that's because you're trying to do advanced stuff in an OS you don't know how to use, that's a bad idea with Windows too.
-
monohouse
I don't recommend Linux for games, emulated crap, if you want games you should go for winblows, and optimize to death, maybe Deleted Edition with nLite, Linux is good for other things : networking
using Linux is not possible without getting your hands dirty, and yes, every time you change things you may have to spend several hours getting to work properly - the advantage of linux is control, apperantly also it's disadvantage, there is too much control and linux will not work without your control as a result, but I would be fine to live with that if it had any benefits, as a matter of fact, for a long time I have been using the Linux From Scratch "distribution", look at how good it can be:
Main Desk
Main Desk 2
Mixer
Audio Rendering
with PNG Background
Full SSE FFT EQ
XMMS in a new skin
XMMS in another skin
XMMS in a yet another skin
Hardware-accelerated Visualization plugins
The Combination
The Combination 2
Qt really sucks
The official Linux wave Editor
Leeching at it's best
More Styles
unfortunately all that is left from this system is the pics that I made at the time i was using it, I could build it again but I just don't kno why, there isn't much more you can do with it than that, the system is composed of as you can see 2.4 kernel which I am testing after compile, gtk-1 gui only, no gtk2 as it is too slow, the system monitor is torsmo, which does a good job not being a hog on the system and still allowing system status visibility, fluxbox window manager, xnc file manager, firefox browser.
one of the main advantages of linux is the ability to optimize software to your hardware by compiling it, as a good habbit I have done that to all the software, and used optimization flags that consumed half of my 1024x768 screen but I just couldn't do anything with it - I had "optimized" software with which I could not do much, audio design is not good there, ladspa plugins are ghay, there is no way you can compare say for example Atmosphere with the ladspa plugins, I meen where is that and where is that ?
im not sayin linux is bad, on the contrary, it is good, in fact VERY good at the time (before the development of the Deleted Edition) it was much better than the alternative (undeleted win2k/xp/98), but it's X window system is a hog compared to a recent Deleted Edition XP SP0 (which is much faster), Linux is still good, the potential outperforms any other system, but there just isn't anything you can do with it, it's like having a Ferrari but not being able to drive over 100 kph, so yeah the acceleration is good, extremely good, programs run fast and always un, no surprises, want the system to keep going for a year ? no problem....but going for a year doing what ? idling ? using lame audio plugins which are barely useful ? running 2-3 7-year old games (and yes quake3 is the only well-supported game on linux, the only one with frame rates as good as the winblows version), Linux has a lote of potential, the core operating system performance is just amazing, it's just too bad there is nothing you can do with that performance other than playing movies, listening to some music and cruising the web - maybe a few more here and there things like compressing archives, programming, text editing etc, which are hardly sutch big tasks anyway.
the selection of games for linux is very low, and even if there is (emulators) the performance is just damn lame crap, instead if you want good control of your system and you want a gaming system, it's best to optimize winblows xp as mutch as possible, here are a few examples of how good winblows can be:
Processes
Mixer
Mixer 2
File Management
foobar2000
Hardware EQ
Hardware EQ detailed
without Directsound
inspiration for the Deleted Edition
another inspiration
this should proove that winblows can be good, but it takes almost as much work as building a LFS system, I am working on the Deleted Editions for some time now, and I still have winblows directories between 70 and 40 MB, which is just not good enough, that will change, I hope to get to at least 50/40 and im 20 Mb short in the Lan Edition, what im trying to explain is, don't rush into Linux, check first if it is good for you, indeed check with some people (like nuhi, bold fortune, me) if there is something that can be done with winblows as an alternative to an attempt to go for linux, but if you are already going for linux - go with LFS, it's the only one that makes the big difference.
using Linux is not possible without getting your hands dirty, and yes, every time you change things you may have to spend several hours getting to work properly - the advantage of linux is control, apperantly also it's disadvantage, there is too much control and linux will not work without your control as a result, but I would be fine to live with that if it had any benefits, as a matter of fact, for a long time I have been using the Linux From Scratch "distribution", look at how good it can be:
Main Desk
Main Desk 2
Mixer
Audio Rendering
with PNG Background
Full SSE FFT EQ
XMMS in a new skin
XMMS in another skin
XMMS in a yet another skin
Hardware-accelerated Visualization plugins
The Combination
The Combination 2
Qt really sucks
The official Linux wave Editor
Leeching at it's best
More Styles
unfortunately all that is left from this system is the pics that I made at the time i was using it, I could build it again but I just don't kno why, there isn't much more you can do with it than that, the system is composed of as you can see 2.4 kernel which I am testing after compile, gtk-1 gui only, no gtk2 as it is too slow, the system monitor is torsmo, which does a good job not being a hog on the system and still allowing system status visibility, fluxbox window manager, xnc file manager, firefox browser.
one of the main advantages of linux is the ability to optimize software to your hardware by compiling it, as a good habbit I have done that to all the software, and used optimization flags that consumed half of my 1024x768 screen but I just couldn't do anything with it - I had "optimized" software with which I could not do much, audio design is not good there, ladspa plugins are ghay, there is no way you can compare say for example Atmosphere with the ladspa plugins, I meen where is that and where is that ?
im not sayin linux is bad, on the contrary, it is good, in fact VERY good at the time (before the development of the Deleted Edition) it was much better than the alternative (undeleted win2k/xp/98), but it's X window system is a hog compared to a recent Deleted Edition XP SP0 (which is much faster), Linux is still good, the potential outperforms any other system, but there just isn't anything you can do with it, it's like having a Ferrari but not being able to drive over 100 kph, so yeah the acceleration is good, extremely good, programs run fast and always un, no surprises, want the system to keep going for a year ? no problem....but going for a year doing what ? idling ? using lame audio plugins which are barely useful ? running 2-3 7-year old games (and yes quake3 is the only well-supported game on linux, the only one with frame rates as good as the winblows version), Linux has a lote of potential, the core operating system performance is just amazing, it's just too bad there is nothing you can do with that performance other than playing movies, listening to some music and cruising the web - maybe a few more here and there things like compressing archives, programming, text editing etc, which are hardly sutch big tasks anyway.
the selection of games for linux is very low, and even if there is (emulators) the performance is just damn lame crap, instead if you want good control of your system and you want a gaming system, it's best to optimize winblows xp as mutch as possible, here are a few examples of how good winblows can be:
Processes
Mixer
Mixer 2
File Management
foobar2000
Hardware EQ
Hardware EQ detailed
without Directsound
inspiration for the Deleted Edition
another inspiration
this should proove that winblows can be good, but it takes almost as much work as building a LFS system, I am working on the Deleted Editions for some time now, and I still have winblows directories between 70 and 40 MB, which is just not good enough, that will change, I hope to get to at least 50/40 and im 20 Mb short in the Lan Edition, what im trying to explain is, don't rush into Linux, check first if it is good for you, indeed check with some people (like nuhi, bold fortune, me) if there is something that can be done with winblows as an alternative to an attempt to go for linux, but if you are already going for linux - go with LFS, it's the only one that makes the big difference.
@Argh
You will be surprised then that think it is easier and quicker to install a mainstream linux distro over windows. Very often these days there are graphical step by step installs instead of the ambiguous text or console installs you are probably fearing. A full install is easy and duel booting only takes a quick Google search for instructions which you can preform inside of the installation via firefox if you are running a live cd to install, such as (k)ubuntu desktop cd.
Installing software is a completely different thing altogether. However, I feel that distros such as debian and ubuntu manage software and installations far better than windows due to their add/remove feature and synaptic archive that lists almost every application you could ever need. You want vlc? Search "vlc" in synaptic or add/remove and click install. With a decent broadband connection you will have the VLC media player installed and ready to use within less than a minute without any further interaction.
That said, you will probably want or need to use the console to install more obscure software such as spring, the occasional unsupported driver, or simply for quickness. Yet, those installs are not as bad as they sound as the commands are very formulaic with step by step copy and paste instructions that you usually come with the software or with a Google search.
Edit:
Also, GNOME FTW!!! KDE IS A CLUTTERED PILE OF Poooooo... lemon... drops!!!
>.>
<.<
>.<
j/k
You will be surprised then that think it is easier and quicker to install a mainstream linux distro over windows. Very often these days there are graphical step by step installs instead of the ambiguous text or console installs you are probably fearing. A full install is easy and duel booting only takes a quick Google search for instructions which you can preform inside of the installation via firefox if you are running a live cd to install, such as (k)ubuntu desktop cd.
Installing software is a completely different thing altogether. However, I feel that distros such as debian and ubuntu manage software and installations far better than windows due to their add/remove feature and synaptic archive that lists almost every application you could ever need. You want vlc? Search "vlc" in synaptic or add/remove and click install. With a decent broadband connection you will have the VLC media player installed and ready to use within less than a minute without any further interaction.
That said, you will probably want or need to use the console to install more obscure software such as spring, the occasional unsupported driver, or simply for quickness. Yet, those installs are not as bad as they sound as the commands are very formulaic with step by step copy and paste instructions that you usually come with the software or with a Google search.
Edit:
Also, GNOME FTW!!! KDE IS A CLUTTERED PILE OF Poooooo... lemon... drops!!!
>.>
<.<
>.<
j/k
I guess the only way to decide which one you like better is to try them first. My main plan is to run a kind of Linux/Windows hybrid system with 2 partitions, Windows for gaming and ect, Linux for most other things. Definatly not until I get high speed interweb, and unfortunatly, that could take a while.
You could shorten that sentence to two words. "Dual booting"LOrDo wrote:My main plan is to run a kind of Linux/Windows hybrid system with 2 partitions, Windows for gaming and ect, Linux for most other things.
I do the same thing as do many others, and yeah you need an good connection these days for Linux.
The ubuntu live cd (Desktop CD) comes with gparted, the gnome partition tool. During install you can resize your windows partition.redcoat wrote:Does anyone have any suggestions for partitioning programs? I've been eying ubuntu for a while, but i can't figure out which programs i can trust to such an critical task as partitioning and i have little desire to clean my entire harddrive in the process.
Here is a tutorial that details dual booting and the entire install process. http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/index.php
It also has a nice summary of the difference between KDE and Gnome. This issue is hot stuff atm with high level flame wars on-going:
Generally, KDE focuses on offering as many features as possible with as many graphical ways as possible for configuring those features. Fans of KDE highlight the functionality it has. Critics of KDE say the menus are too confusing. Gnome, on the other hand, opts for simplicity and often hides certain configurations in order to achieve that simplicity. Fans of Gnome think the simplicity of Gnome offers a cleanliness that allows the user to get stuff done. Critics of Gnome think it just lacks certain functionality.
-
Ling_Lover
- Posts: 100
- Joined: 26 Sep 2006, 11:50
Kubuntu.Argh wrote:I'd like a distro that installed as easily as Windows, and was ready-to-go out of the box. Is there really such a thing, with Linux?
Farking Kubuntu.
Srysly, this was exactly what I was looking for. It takes a while to get used to what linux is all about: Free functionality. Want a program? Don't go to the store to buy it. Applications menu->Add/Get Programs. Automatically downloads/installs/configures any program you want.
Kubuntu will remind you most of Windows, but I've come to LOVE my build of vanilla Ubuntu with Beryl addons. Where else can you get a fully rotatable penagon for a desktop?
