Thinking about getting Linux..

Luriden · Post by **Luriden** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:56 pm

..but I have no idea where to start. Where do I get this at, and what are all these distros I hear? I want to get it, but I don't want to spend days getting it on 56k (assuming that it's a free download). I also need it to be easy on a slow computer. Am I making an oxymoron out of this?

Post by **|darc|** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:21 pm

You should start by downloading a distribution. Linux is just a kernel (basically, core component of an operating system). Downloading Linux and downloading all the programs to go with it from window managers to apps would take forever to install. So, most (see sane, practical) people download a distribution ('distro') which includes Linux and all kinds of apps in an easy installer that configs it for you.

Common distributions include Mandrake Linux, Fedora ('Red Hat'), SuSE, Slackware, Knoppix, Linspire ('Lindows'), Xandros, and Gentoo.

Mandrake/Fedora/Slackware are all free distributions that install straight to your hard drive like Windows.

SuSE/Linspire/Xandros are pay versions of Linux (I'm not too sure about SuSE, though--it might be free--but I don't recommend it anyway). Linspire and Xandros are very easy to use and dumbed-down to let newbs easily use them. They install to your hard disk like Windows.

Knoppix is a free version of Linux on a bootable CD. This is called a 'LiveCD'. You pop it in, and it boots Linux off of the disk *without* installing it. This is what I recommend you use first. After you are done with it, you remove the CD and reboot and you're right back into Windows again.

Gentoo is a from-scratch-using-scripts 'make-your-own-distro' kind of distro. I don't recommend this to a newbie, but once you get the hang of it, it's the best distro (in my opinion, of course).

BTW, There is a Linux forum here.

mogorman · Post by **mogorman** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:21 pm

You would probably be most happy with mandrake as it is made for beginners but if you are on 56k and are gonna download it yourself I would reccomend morphix or knoppix. They are live cds, cds that run linux without installing to hd and then you can play around with linux without touching your hd and if you like it you can install from cd.

Luriden · Post by **Luriden** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:26 pm

Alright, I've heard of Knoppix, but I'll try it. If I like it, I'll try one of the others listed. If it's no better than what I have now, I'll stick with Win2k.

And sorry |darc|, didn't see it. Feel free to rape this thread all the way to the Linux forum if you wish.

burnerO · Post by **burnerO** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:39 pm

I was quite intent on giving Linux another try a few days back.

Loaded Mandrake easily enough, couldn't get Firefox going and said f... it.

I'd be a happy kiddo with Firefox, Gaim, and Wine if it would power my crappy graphics app that I'm dependant on.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:41 pm

You can install Knoppix to hdd too.

They completely overhauled the install script (or whatever) for version 3.4

You can now install a super bloaty clone of knoppix, something i forgot, or a stripped down version which is basically debian.

Its also the easiest linux install Ive used.

There are only 2 main flaws with Linux:
1) An amazing amount of incompatability issues, and despite what linux freaks will have to believe, there isnt an alternative to everything.

2) Linux freaks cant understand why you would want to use a comp and not want to compile and code and use command line stuff, and would much rather you use the linux distros which let you do this, rather than windows-esque ones.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:56 pm

1) An amazing amount of incompatability issues, and despite what linux freaks will have to believe, there isnt an alternative to everything.

Yet again... what "incompatability"? If you mean "it isn't Windows", then you're right.

2) Linux freaks cant understand why you would want to use a comp and not want to compile and code and use command line stuff, and would much rather you use the linux distros which let you do this, rather than windows-esque ones.

Welcome to 1995...

On this machine, I've compiled the Dreamcast toolchain from scratch, KOS, and one development library that I wanted to play with (which no normal user would want to install anyway). Since they're all related to software development, compiling them from source code is not unreasonable. If you didn't know how to do it, you wouldn't even be attempting it.

Everything else was installed from pre-compiled packages, which I did install from the command line (downloading them automatically, of course). I didn't have to though - I could have used a GUI-based program installer instead. I just didn't want to.

Oh, and all Linux distros let you use command-line tools. Why is that a problem? Windows lets you use command-line tools too, you know, and they're just as optional.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:07 am

BlackAura wrote:
1) An amazing amount of incompatability issues, and despite what linux freaks will have to believe, there isnt an alternative to everything.
Yet again... what "incompatability"? If you mean "it isn't Windows", then you're right.

2) Linux freaks cant understand why you would want to use a comp and not want to compile and code and use command line stuff, and would much rather you use the linux distros which let you do this, rather than windows-esque ones.
Welcome to 1995...

On this machine, I've compiled the Dreamcast toolchain from scratch, KOS, and one development library that I wanted to play with (which no normal user would want to install anyway). Since they're all related to software development, compiling them from source code is not unreasonable. If you didn't know how to do it, you wouldn't even be attempting it.

Everything else was installed from pre-compiled packages, which I did install from the command line (downloading them automatically, of course). I didn't have to though - I could have used a GUI-based program installer instead. I just didn't want to.

Oh, and all Linux distros let you use command-line tools. Why is that a problem? Windows lets you use command-line tools too, you know, and they're just as optional.

BlackAura

For a start, I cant play half of my PC games on Linux, sure some I can use with a lot of arsing about with wine/winex but quite a few just dont work.
Next up, wheres the alternative to Microsoft Access? And GIMP doesnt rival PSP, and I cant google up to find a list of freeware apps for doing certain things, so I'm heavily limited in choice.
Finally I know of several things I have which plug into USB ports and dont work with linux, and it also doesnt supoort the majoirty of wireless networking equipment. I use Linksys equipment, on of the biggest networking companies out there yet, its all unsupported, unless once again, I arse about.

And BlackAura, dont welcome me to 1995. I mentioned I was trying out Mandrake just last year (2003 I believe) and got flamed to hell with freaks telling me I should "OPTIMIZE" and use Gentoo, or similar because its "better" and "not like windows" etc. etc.

At the end of the day, can Linux do everything I do in Windows?
Nope

Can Linux do what it can do as easily as Windows?
Not from my experience

So is BoneyCork going to consider migrating to an operating system that requires me to learn new skills, and stop doing half of the things I do with no visibile advantage?
Not likley

And about the command line stuff. I know windows lets you use the command line. But I dont HAVE to use it. Which is the difference. I had to use command line in Mandrake to setup my soundcard, setup my video drivers properly, mount my hardrives and other such crap.

Id much rather have Control Panel and an automated wizard.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:05 am

For a start, I cant play half of my PC games on Linux, sure some I can use with a lot of arsing about with wine/winex but quite a few just dont work.
Next up, wheres the alternative to Microsoft Access? And GIMP doesnt rival PSP, and I cant google up to find a list of freeware apps for doing certain things, so I'm heavily limited in choice.

In other words... it's not Windows. You can't expect to sit down at a completely different system and do everything in the exact same way, especially not with one as different to Windows as Linux is.

There is no all-in-one database thing like Access, but there are several programs which do more-or-less the same thing. They're very different to Access, in much the same way that Linux is different to Windows. GIMP may not have all the features of PSP or Photoshop (and may be totally unsuitable for some things, like professional print work), but it's still a very powerful image editing program - it's just different.

Finally I know of several things I have which plug into USB ports and dont work with linux, and it also doesnt supoort the majoirty of wireless networking equipment. I use Linksys equipment, on of the biggest networking companies out there yet, its all unsupported, unless once again, I arse about.

The same is true of Windows. Both systems support standard USB peripherals just fine. Non-standard ones are not supported by either system without additional drivers. Windows hardly supports any wireless network cards without additional drivers. Neither does Linux. Installing those drivers is still a difficult task unless you know what you're doing, no matter which OS you're using.

Does Microsoft support Linksys network cards? No. Linksys does. They refuse to support anything but Windows, or even provide any kind of specifications for anyone else to support other systems.

Some Linksys cards work out-of-the-box on a recent, properly set up system. Others either don't work at all, or work if you use the Windows drivers. Some distributions can do that without much additional configuration - just tell them where to find the Windows drivers, and they'll take care of everything. Mine worked just fine like that.

And BlackAura, dont welcome me to 1995. I mentioned I was trying out Mandrake just last year (2003 I believe) and got flamed to hell with freaks telling me I should "OPTIMIZE" and use Gentoo, or similar because its "better" and "not like windows" etc. etc.

Mandrake (and RedHat / Fedora) are very poor examples of current Linux systems. Many of the other desktop versions (like SuSE, Mepis, PCLinuxOS, Xandros, even Lindows) do a much better job of setting things up, automatically detect as much hardware as possible, configure everything without bothering you, have GUI configuration tools for everything, can download and install new software for you automatically, have most of the decent software pre-installed...

Perhaps 1995 was a bit early. In my experience, most of the stuff you complained about hasn't been an issue for a long time. Not in the past year or so at least.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:49 am

I understand that I cant use another OS and expect it to be the same.

But thats my point.

It CAN'T do what I want it to. So why the hell would I use it?

It cant play games properly.
I use Access a lot for various reasons, but cant use it.
The GIMP, as you pointed out is inferior to other image applications.

You can defend Linux for your purposes but I cant replace Windows with Linux, or any other OS for that matter, because I wont be able to do what I want to do on my computer.

And as for the peripherals and networking:

I am well aware of the driver issues but:

1) Several of my USB periphals dont have USB drivers for Linux, and the Windows ones dont work. True, I should be blaming the manufacturer for the driver's non existance. But the actual lack of support is a fault of Linux

2) My network consists of 2 computers, and is in place purely to share the internet connection. So I have an Ad-Hoc network running. These are completely unsupported in Linux, and that has nothing to do with the drivers. The kernel simply has no support for that sort of thing. Meaning I have to buy extra equipment.

Also I am wall aware that some distributions try to simplify everything, but you must remember that:

1) You cant get your hands on most (or possibly all?) of those distributions you mentioned without having to cough up nearly $100 for customer support services, manuals and other such stuff, which in my opinion, takes away one of the best things about Linux: its free.

2) By using Linux you are entering into an extremly closed group of users, and from my experience it isnt a very friendly place, especially if you are using one of these general desktop distributions rather than ones designed for the hardcore command-line coder guy. Whiel using Linux if I had a problem, I was usually told something along the lines of "ewww <distro Im using>. Get <gentoo/slackware>!"

3) Moving to an operating system that designs itself exactly like Windows, but loses the support and compatability you get with Windows seems like a completely diotic move. I wouldntwant to waste my time moving to an operating system that is exactly the same as the one I'm already using, let alone one that, for my personal uses, would be a downgrade from windows.

CoasterKing · Post by **CoasterKing** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:15 am

Moved to the Linux forum

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:13 am

I use Access a lot for various reasons, but cant use it.
The GIMP, as you pointed out is inferior to other image applications.

Inferior? Not really. Depends on what you're using it for.

Picking one off the top of my head... Rekall is somewhat like Access (although I found it much easier to use - I hate Access). Obviously it isn't Access, so it works a little differently. Depending on exactly what you use it for, there's probably not a problem.

True, I should be blaming the manufacturer for the driver's non existance. But the actual lack of support is a fault of Linux

No, it's the fault of the manufacturer. Most of them utterly refuse to even consider releasing drivers or hardware specs. On the rare occasion when they can be pursuaded to do so, it's either a binary-only driver (which is virtually useless), or requires signing an NDA (again useless, because you can't develop an open-source driver under the terms on an NDA).

So I have an Ad-Hoc network running. These are completely unsupported in Linux, and that has nothing to do with the drivers. The kernel simply has no support for that sort of thing.

Kernel level support isn't a problem (Linux has it, works fine, part of the standard wireless networking system). Ad-hoc mode needs user-land support apps (which exist, work fine, mostly part of the standard wireless networking tools), and driver support. The driver support is the only potential trouble area. Most of the native Linux drivers support it, the few drivers released by the manufacturer tend not to support it, and it sometimes works using the Windows drivers.

You cant get your hands on most (or possibly all?) of those distributions you mentioned without having to cough up nearly $100 for customer support services, manuals and other such stuff

No. SuSE can be installed directly off the 'net, if you want, and they recently released some ISO images. There's a couple of programs missing that are on the pay-for version, but they're easy enough to install. Even before they released official ISO images, you could get unofficial ones which had been build off the networked install files.

Mepis is available as two ISO images. If you want, you can pay the developers for it. You certainly don't have to.

PCLinuxOS is available as a single LiveCD ISO image. Same deal as Mepis.

Xandros has an "Open Circulation Edition", which is the same as the normal one except CD burning with the built-in burning program is crippled to 1x, and has an ad-supported version of Opera.

Lindows is supposed to be commercial, but they tend to give away free copies very often.

3) Moving to an operating system that designs itself exactly like Windows, but loses the support and compatability you get with Windows seems like a completely diotic move. I wouldntwant to waste my time moving to an operating system that is exactly the same as the one I'm already using, let alone one that, for my personal uses, would be a downgrade from windows.

Err... Linux is nothing like Windows. Never has been.

Whiel using Linux if I had a problem, I was usually told something along the lines of "ewww <distro Im using>. Get <gentoo/slackware>!"

If you were using Mandrake, I'm not suprised. Mandrake tends to have a lot of hardware and software problems.

MrSiggler · Post by **MrSiggler** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:46 pm

People have too high expectations of what Linux can do

They expect it to be some sort of 'holy grail' of computing. And are always let down.

No, you won't be able to play most your Windows games. Yes, you will lose many of the applications you used to use. Yes, you need to actually use a command line. No, possibly not all your hardware will work. Why is this? It is a completely different operating system. Different in design. This is not a parallell build of Windows, nor an update to, nor a clone of. It's an entirely different OS. You can't expect a flawless transition

What do you gain? An operating system that won't degrade over use. Isn't ridden with holes. Stability. Performance. Flexability. I can't tell you now nice it is to have an OS installed I know won't just 'self dustruct' some day a few months after I install it

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:19 pm

Kernel level support isn't a problem (Linux has it, works fine, part of the standard wireless networking system).

AFAIK, there is no standard wireless networking system for Linux -- yet. There's work going on to integrate the HostAP code into the kernel to serve as a standard infrastructure for wireless networking, but right now if you use linux-wlan drivers you're using one implementation of the protocol stack, if you use HostAP drivers you're using another, if you use prism54 drivers you're using yet another etc. All of these drivers work, but they carry most of the support code with them.

ian · Post by **ian** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 6:49 pm

Kenichi wrote:..but I have no idea where to start. Where do I get this at?

sounds like me

my teacher gave me xandros and a book on how to use it (bloddy thick

) but i havent got around to it yet it all looks to hard and time consuming

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 6:56 pm

Xandros is only hard to use if the video card drivers don't work properly.

*Blackaura glares at Xandros CD, and remembers how hard it was to change the auto-detected video card settings to ones that actually worked

Basically, if you can use Windows XP, then you can probably use Xandros.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:16 am

MrSiggler wrote:People have too high expectations of what Linux can do
They expect it to be some sort of 'holy grail' of computing. And are always let down.

No, you won't be able to play most your Windows games. Yes, you will lose many of the applications you used to use. Yes, you need to actually use a command line. No, possibly not all your hardware will work. Why is this? It is a completely different operating system. Different in design. This is not a parallell build of Windows, nor an update to, nor a clone of. It's an entirely different OS. You can't expect a flawless transition

What do you gain? An operating system that won't degrade over use. Isn't ridden with holes. Stability. Performance. Flexability. I can't tell you now nice it is to have an OS installed I know won't just 'self dustruct' some day a few months after I install it

But that doesnt happen with Windows. I've used Windows for years and it doesnt degrade or self-distruct.

I'm sick of linux-elitiests thinking that because Windows fudged them over at some point, it happens to everybody else too.

And BlackAura, about my comment about those n00b Linuz distros trying to be likw Windows. Are you honestly trying to say that Lindows and Xandros arent trying to look and feel like Windows?

Orange_Ribbon · Post by **Orange_Ribbon** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:35 am

BoneyCork, you sound like me and my hatred of Mac (stupid macs I hate them soooo much) Someone of us like something different. I found oddly that I was able to work better in Linux cause it sparked my creativity. Don't ask me why. I also knowticed a large speed difference with my PC. Also with XP there are so many things I dunna like. Also why are fighting about Linux in a Linux forum? I hate macs (I hate them sooo much) so I stay out of the Mac Forum.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:10 am

Orange_Ribbon wrote:BoneyCork, you sound like me and my hatred of Mac (stupid macs I hate them soooo much) Someone of us like something different. I found oddly that I was able to work better in Linux cause it sparked my creativity. Don't ask me why. I also knowticed a large speed difference with my PC. Also with XP there are so many things I dunna like. Also why are fighting about Linux in a Linux forum? I hate macs (I hate them sooo much) so I stay out of the Mac Forum.

I wasnt fighting about Linux in a linux forum originally, the thread just got moved here.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:12 am

WARNING: Long post ahead. If you don't care about my rather negative experiences with a vast array of Windows machines, don't waste your time reading it.

But that doesnt happen with Windows. I've used Windows for years and it doesnt degrade or self-distruct.

Years? Without formatting? I see three options:

1 - You are only of the lucky few who have no problems with Windows whatsoever. Congratulations.
2 - You're used to it, so don't notice it. If you put up with crap for long enough, it ceases to bother you.
3 - You're lying to attempt to justify your position.

I can't think of any reason you'd do 3, 1 is possible but highly unlikely based on my experience, and 2 is quite likely.

I've seen perhaps one Windows machine that actually worked properly for more than around six months. It was one of mine, in fact, and it stopped working acceptably after around a year. I was impressed that it'd managed to last that long (first time I'd used Windows XP), because Windows 98 tended to get unusable after three or four months.

Even in Windows XP, the system starts to slow down, things take longer and longer to load, the networking system becomes less reliable, the shell starts doing all kinds of insane things, it sits at the "Welcome" screen for several minutes with the hard drive thrashing like a crazy thing before showing the desktop, and the system remains unusable for thirty seconds after it appears. In Windows 9x, much worse happens (like program crashes, general system failures, even more insane behaviour).

Just try a year-old installation of Windows XP, and compare it to a completely clean installtion. The difference is incredible.

I know you're going to blame it on installed software, spyware, viruses, or some other nonsense. No viruses or spyware on any of them (many of these machines were directly or indirectly in my care, and I do know how to protect systems from that kind of crap), and generally had a set of software installed shortly after installation, and that's it. Aside from games. Most of the Windows XP systems were even running as limited user accounts, so it's virtually impossible to screw the system up through user stupidity. It happened anyway.

The absolute record between installtion and freaky behaviour has been around three hours. I immediately blanked it and started afresh, and that system lasted all of three weeks before I erased it completely in favour of Linux.

These aren't just my machines either. The same problems happen for lots of other people. I know exactly one person who doesn't have any problems with Windows at all. These problems seem to be amplified by having the machine connected to a local network (and I've not used a non-networked system for around eight years, so as you can imagine I'm completely sick and tired of the Windows network system breaking).

Admittedly, it is possible to recover from some of this crap without reinstalling the entire OS. However, it's quite a difficult thing to do. I've done it once before, and it involved so much work that I never want to do it again. I actually found it easier to start from scratch, which is when I started making restore CDs. An operating system designed for home use should not require constant and difficult maintainance to work effectively. Once it's running, it should stay running until something seriously bad happens to it.

My main system has been running the same installation of Linux since last year sometime (nine months, maybe more), and it runs just as well as it did when I first installed it. Bootup times are pretty much the same, programs run just as well as they did when they were first installed, and all the programs behave as well as they did when they were fresh. And I have not been kind to this system. It has around three gigabytes of software installed on it, software is almost constantly installed, removed or updated, I've been manipulating both thousands of small files, and large files of several gigabytes. It's been doing video encoding, DVD authoring, CD ripping/encoding/burning, backing up other systems over the network, running Windows XP inside an emulator (bloody university), been used for software development across several languages with a vast variety of tools and libraries, along with general boring stuff like web browsing and email. It's had several key pieces of hardware (video card, motherboard, network card) changed and several pieces (USB flash drives, DVD writer, hard drive, camera, TV card) added or removed at various points. It's had a number of games on it, it's been running as our network's primary fileserver (and has about six Windows games installed which can be played on other computers on the network without slowing down my machine at all) and generally doing things to the system that would bring a Windows XP system crashing down in flames. I haven't had to be at all careful with it, because no matter what I throw at it it just doesn't break.

Oh wait - I did break it once. I accedentally put a / inside a delete command where there shouldn't have been one, so instead of deleting a test kernel I accedentally deleted the real one, resulting in a non bootable system. I should have been doing that testing as an unprivlaged user, but I was doing it as the root user, so it was my own fault. Simple enough to fix anyway, and it's not the kind of mistake I could have make if I weren't fiddling around with manuall building a small Linux system from scratch.

We also have a laptop which dual boots between Windows and Linux. Both OSes get approximately equal use. Windows XP is now nearly unusable, whereas the Linux installation still works as well as it ever did.

Virtually everything I've experienced with Windows leads me to the opposite conclusion you have. Windows just is not stable. I've yet to see a version that is, and I've yet to see a system that hasn't developed a significant number of defects.

Then again, I have a very low tolerance for defects. Far lower, it seems, than most people. What other people tolerate or ignore (usually thinking "oh well, computers are just like that"), I don't. I know that there is no reason for these problems, and that Microsoft just don't fix them because it dosen't cost them money, and I will not tolerate a defective system.

And BlackAura, about my comment about those n00b Linuz distros trying to be likw Windows. Are you honestly trying to say that Lindows and Xandros arent trying to look and feel like Windows?

Did I say that? No. As much as you might like to supply my side of this argument, you don't. I do.

Both Xandros and Lindows/Linspire are obviously trying to attract users from the existing Windows user base. Judging by your responses ("It's not Windows! Aaargh! Inferior!") of those of my younger brother when he tried to use my machine (without touching anything: "What the??? Help!") the only way to do that is to try to make it familiar to Windows users. Duh. However, neither Xandros or Lindows are Windows, or even anything like Windows. There are a lot of things in Linux which are done in a fundamentally different way to Windows, and there's no way to mask that behind a GUI that's been tweaked to look like Windows.

Anyway, have you ever used either of them? As far I know, you haven't, and it doesn't sound like you have.

Thinking about getting Linux..

Thinking about getting Linux..

Re: Thinking about getting Linux..