Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: H_TeXMeX_H on 18 October 2006, 21:38
-
I'm looking for a highly optimized Linux distro but that is also easy to install, configure, and use. I've tried to install Gentoo in the past, but it was such a pain in the ass. Maybe I'll try again ? I hear Arch is pretty good (i686 optimized), but that the packages are not updated regularly and some are broken. Looks like Gentoo is a better choice in that regard. But how long does Gentoo take to install ? I mean it has to compile everything from source doesn't it ?
-
I installed Gentoo once, on a P3/650. I was only able to do stuff during a class period at school, but I could leave it to compile overnight. It took a school week before everything, including KDE, was functional. I could've probably done it in 2-3 days on that same machine if I had access to it 24/7.
-
Shit, I don't have that kind of time, and only one computer. Maybe an i686-optimized distro is better, I'm looking around for a decent one right now ... one that doesn't take forever to install.
-
My mate install gentoo overnight on a AMD athlon 1600+
-
Shit, I don't have that kind of time,
You also have a much more powerful computer than what I did it on.
-
Damn, I've been looking all damn day, and not a one good distro :( Read tons of reviews, went through at least half the distros on Distrowatch ... fuck. I must say, I'm quite disappointed in the state of most Linux distros. I want a distro that is easy to install, configure, and use. I want it at least i586 or i686 optimized. I do NOT want any distro that has a non-free or limited-free marketing sheme ... some examples would be Mandriva, Suse, etc. I don't want a choice between getting a 'limited' free version of Linux and a pay 'full' version (Mandriva and Suse). Fedora's marketing scheme is acceptable, because there are no restrictions ... only problem is it's optimized for i386 ... I feel this may be sapping some power from me. If Fedora had i686 optimized packages, I would stay with it. Really, it looks like I'm gonna stay with it either way.
I also do not want a distro that is on its way out or has very few devs ... most are doomed to fail or have problems ... take CCux (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ccux) for example ... I thought it would be great, but guess what ? The .iso is 702 MB ... and all of my CDs can only hold 700 MB ... fuck !!!
-
Here's my advice: suffer. But then in your spare time, make a 686 distro yourself. I bet it wouldn't be hard to put one together.
-
I'm using rPath Linux (http://www.rpath.com/corp/products-rpath-linux.html) (rPL).
I would use Foresight (http://www.foresightlinux.com/), but does an OS really need to ship (the non-free) Google Earth?
rPL is quite old, but I bloody well like it. There's nothing wrong with GNOME 2.12! (KDE's also installed, which I like - for K3B, amaroK, kate and some other handy apps)
As for optimisations, I've no idea how rPL works, but I don't think it's a big deal.
Main reason I'm using rPL is for it's package management (conary, which I've mentioned here many a time) of course. If you're not interested in learning about it you probably won't like using rPL - there's no graphical frontend, and everything you want mightn't be packaged (in one of the default repo's anyhow).
If you can figure it out, then you might be able to help me put together my OS ;) (feel free to bloat up the wiki (http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com/~declan/fros/index.php/Main_Page) in the mean time)
Time to package GAIM 2.0b4...
-
I also do not want a distro that is on its way out or has very few devs ... most are doomed to fail or have problems ... take CCux (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ccux) for example ... I thought it would be great, but guess what ? The .iso is 702 MB ... and all of my CDs can only hold 700 MB ... fuck !!!
All my CD-Rs take 703MB. Are yours really 700?
And seriously, give Gentoo a try if you are having this hard a time finding something. How fast is your computer? You could probably do it in one day if it's modern.
-
btw, they do make 800MB cds
-
All my CD-Rs take 703MB. Are yours really 700?
And seriously, give Gentoo a try if you are having this hard a time finding something. How fast is your computer? You could probably do it in one day if it's modern.
I'll probably try Gentoo one day, but is it really that easy to install ? Everytime I look at the install instructions (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?style=printable&full=1) it seriously discourages me to the point were I don't want to install it anymore. Also, do I really have to print out the install instructions ? I'm not sure I have enough ink in my printer. I don't see why they can't make a simple installer (even a text-based prompt would be nice) for it rather than make me type in hundreds of lines into the shell. Not that I couldn't do that, I just don't think it's practical. (I realise there is a quick install guide ... but it's not too much shorter and it doesn't cover every relevant possibility)
All my CD-Rs are reported at 700 MB (slightly less, actually). My computer specs are:
Processor:
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
stepping : 9
cpu MHz : 2806.505
cache size : 512 KB
bogomips : 5616.26
RAM:
MemTotal: 1033388 kB (~ 1 GB RAM)
HDD:
/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 1696 MB in 2.00 seconds = 846.53 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 86 MB in 3.06 seconds = 28.09 MB/sec
I suppose it shouldn't take too long, as long as I type fast.
-
Well, ok I'm gonna try gentoo again, just cuz I gotta see if there's a difference ... I hope it's worth the time ... here goes nothing ...
-
I have a question ... is there a significant difference between say i386 compiled packages and i686 compiled ones ? I mean will I notice a difference on my machine (as described above) ?
There are always trade-offs. I was thinking of installing gentoo, but then I read this quote on Distrowatch about Gentoo (it's probably accurate)
Pros: Painless installation of individual software packages, highly up-to-date, superb documentation, the "geek feeling" of building a distribution tailored to user's needs.
Cons: Long and tedious system installation, occasional instability and risk of breakdown.
:( I prefer stability to speed. Maybe there is a balance between stability and speed and compatibility. The most of each.
-
That's the really long install guide you have there. Here's the shorter one: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-quickinstall.xml
As for stability, the only time mine crashed was from a failing CPU fan.
-
I have a question ... is there a significant difference between say i386 compiled packages and i686 compiled ones ? I mean will I notice a difference on my machine (as described above) ?
In my experience, no. I've compiled an entire FreeBSD system for i386, i686, and even athlon64. Synthetic benchmarks (UNIXBench, ubench) comparisons have never shown a difference to me on my system.
-
In my experience, no. I've compiled an entire FreeBSD system for i386, i686, and even athlon64. Synthetic benchmarks (UNIXBench, ubench) comparisons have never shown a difference to me on my system.
Ok, thanks, that's what I thought. I suppose it only makes a difference in graphics intensive programs (games included) ... this is the only place I have noticed a difference when compiling for different architectures. The difference was not really that significant either ... just 3-6 fps more or less. It might also make a difference in any program that uses a lot of CPU time ... there are not too many of those ... and if there are, just compile them yourself.
-
Man, FC6 is seriously fucked up ... can't detect usbs properly ... barely boots properly ... nothing works properly ! What have they done ?!?
Trying Ubuntu next, and finally Gentoo (I can feel the impending headache even now)
-
Hey Tex, what kind of hardware do you run? Any exotic type hardware, like usb video cams, or TV tuners?
If not, perhaps you might want to try PC-BSD. It's like FreeBSD, only super easy to install and use. If you try it you'll have the added benefit of having someone here on the forums (ME) that can probably answer just about any post install question you have.
-
Synthetic benchmarks may not be the best.
Real world computational tests (how fast to compile something, encode to ogg vorbis, etc) do show a marginal benefit from CPU optimization, at least on all linux benchmarks I have read. The amount depends on the type of calculation. I would be suprised if FreeBSD didn't have similar benefits. It's really simple: CPU architectures get newer and newer improvements to their instruction sets which you simply do not take advantage of if you don't optimize. The improvements are obviously worthwhile since AMD and INTEL spend big bucks all the time to implement them.
Noteworthy is the 32 bit vs 64 bit optimization for x86-64. Going to 64 bit can make some hard core calculations work faster.
If I use a program often, and it pulls significant cpu power, I will optimize it. I've recompiled xmms so that it would minimize it's cpu impact (reduce skipping etc). XMMS doesn't impact the cpu much, but I found optimizing it helped when I was playing music files and also pushing my cpu to 100%.
I've never bothered to optimize an entire distro before (rarely do I push my cpu to 100% utilization anyway). I have heard anecdotal testimony that you can gain very fast systems doing so.
-
If not, perhaps you might want to try PC-BSD. It's like FreeBSD, only super easy to install and use. If you try it you'll have the added benefit of having someone here on the forums (ME) that can probably answer just about any post install question you have.
Toad, there was a freebsd-based live disk (not BSD disk 2) which was the answer to Knoppix. I posted about it a long time ago but can't remember the name. Do you know what it is?
-
http://www.freesbie.org/
-
Man, FC6 is seriously fucked up ... can't detect usbs properly ... barely boots properly ... nothing works properly ! What have they done ?!?
Trying Ubuntu next, and finally Gentoo (I can feel the impending headache even now)
Edit out..errr...turn off SELinux. That fixed everything that was going wrong with mine.
And as far as what it's like to install Gentoo...
A pro installs Gentoo (http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1830&start=0)
-
If you want a fast Gentoo installation you should try using most of the things Gentoo has to offer like reiser4, package optimizations, flags etc.
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-509252.html (http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-509252.html)
I would really like to install this on my laptop but I just can't get it going. Nearly impossible to get the LAN running.
Personally I'm very interested in *BSD but I can't get it to run on any machine I have. I think it may be my nforce chipsets that are causing problems. It seems like a much more robust system.
-
You could always use ndiswrapper if you've any Win32 drivers for it...
-
Man, FC6 is seriously fucked up ... can't detect usbs properly ... barely boots properly ... nothing works properly ! What have they done ?!?
I've heard nothing but good things about it. A pro I know set up apt repos so you can upgrade from FC5 straight through. Maybe you should try that. And agreed, SELinux is not for home users.
Trying Ubuntu next, and finally Gentoo (I can feel the impending headache even now)
It seems to me that Gentoo is what you want. Meaning, you can go through and compile each package with your sse2 flags and whatnot. Plus, if you're a rockstar, you can customize each source file to your personal needs.
-
SELinux was off in FC6 and it was fucked both after updating from FC5 and also after installing from scratch.
Ubuntu failed to shutdown properly ... I attempted to fix it ... nothing, and it's too much like Window$ ... logon sound and litte popups in the taskbar ... no thanks.
I'm currently installing Gentoo ... started it 7 hrs ago .... it'll be done in the morning (it's at 50% now) ... I really hope it does work this time, I've tried to read the install instructions as carefully as possible. I also formated the root partition with JFS ... according to benchmarks it and XFS give the most performance for the things I deal with. (XFS might be better but is much more liable for patent infringement)
-
Plus, if you're a rockstar, you can customize each source file to your personal needs.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!
Ubuntu failed to shutdown properly ... I attempted to fix it ... nothing, and it's too much like Window$ ... logon sound and litte popups in the taskbar ... no thanks.
BOO!!!
SELinux was off in FC6 and it was fucked both after updating from FC5 and also after installing from scratch.
What? SELinux installs automatically on. "You can turn it off by setting the SELINUX variable in /etc/sysconfig/selinux to "Disabled"."---In the words of Void.
-
Gentoo failed to install 3x .... that's good enough an effort for now ... maybe I'll try again some other time.
Reinstalled Ubuntu ... seems the shutdown hang is due to a different version of halt (you have to use "halt -p" for it to shutdown properly ... I haven't figured out how to reboot it without it hanging (reboot -p does not work).
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, the status of Linux distros is fairly shitty if you ask me. Or maybe I haven't tried the right ones ? I've tried many so far, none have I liked completely.
Ok, I'm thinking of trying a BSD distro ... but I have no more CDs left. I have a few questions ... how many programs have been ported to BSD ? I need openoffice, hplip, xsane, madwifi, k3b, and most importantly dvorak keyboard support !
-
poweroff owns for shutdown.
-
I think you're doing something wrong. I've gotten RedHat6, SuSE 8, Slackware 9 (20+ times, it was my learning phase), Slackware 10, FC1, FC2, FC3, FC4, FC5, and Ubuntu PPC to run with hardly any troubles whatsoever on 6 different computers. Certainly never had one hang on shutdown. FC4 failed on install the first time, but ran just fine the second time.
Maybe you're not setting them up right.
On Slackware, I always ran "shutdown -h now" to power down.
-
Maybe I have a really buggy BIOS (I think I can say for sure that I do, because I have had no problems using any linux distro on my desktop) (my laptop is buggy piece of shit)
Gonna try slackware next (I didn't realize that you don't actually need a floppy drive to install it ... while their site says otherwise:
Slackware Linux doesn't require an extremely powerful system to run (though having one is quite nice :). It will run on systems as far back as the 486. Below is a list of minimum system requirements needed to install and run Slackware.
* 486 processor
* 16MB RAM (32MB suggested)
* 100-500 megabytes of hard disk space for a minimal and around 3.5GB for full install
* 3.5" floppy drive
Additional hardware may be needed if you want to run the X Window System at a usable speed or if you want network capabilities.
http://www.slackware.com/install/sysreq.php (http://www.slackware.com/install/sysreq.php)
-
Tex, post the results of lspci and maybe lsusb so we can get a better idea of your hardware - so far, I haven't seen the laptop vendor / model information but I could've just overlooked it.
EDIT: The Handbook is a TERRIBLE resource for first-timers, it's only really good for reference purposes. Use the x86 Quickinstall (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-quickinstall.xml) or the amd64 Howto (http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_AMD64) depending on which architecture you have - there used to be a Quickinstall for amd64, but I've been unable to find it of late.
EDIT 2: Found the amd64 Handbook (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?full=1&style=printable), still can't find the Quickinstall. :(
-
Yeah, that's the minimum. If you have a bootable cd drive, you are well beyond Patrick's idea of minimum. If you can't get Slackware to run, then I know you've done something wrong. Be advised that Slackware tends to be a bit behind in things like versions of gtk, kernels, drivers, etc, and their basic setup may seem like FC2.
-
I have a few questions ... how many programs have been ported to BSD ?
Well, as of now, there are over 16000 apps in the ports tree.
I need openoffice, hplip, xsane, madwifi, k3b, and most importantly dvorak keyboard support !
All of those things except for madwifi are available for FreeBSD/PC-BSD in the ports tree. madwifi however, you won't need, as FreeBSD already comes with drivers for atheros based wifi devices.
-
what about dvorak ?
and here's the lspci and lsusb
drax@ubuntu:~$ lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] 645xx (rev 03)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] SG86C202
00:02.0 ISA bridge: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] SiS963 [MuTIOL Media IO] (rev 14)
00:02.1 SMBus: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] SiS961/2 SMBus Controller
00:02.5 IDE interface: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] 5513 [IDE]
00:02.6 Modem: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] AC'97 Modem Controller (rev a0)
00:02.7 Multimedia audio controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] AC'97 Sound Controller (rev a0)
00:03.0 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 1.0 Controller (rev 0f)
00:03.1 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 1.0 Controller (rev 0f)
00:03.2 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 1.0 Controller (rev 0f)
00:03.3 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 2.0 Controller
00:04.0 Ethernet controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] SiS900 PCI Fast Ethernet (rev 90)
00:0a.0 CardBus bridge: Ricoh Co Ltd RL5c476 II (rev aa)
00:0a.1 CardBus bridge: Ricoh Co Ltd RL5c476 II (rev aa)
00:0a.2 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Ricoh Co Ltd R5C552 IEEE 1394 Controller (rev 02)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV17 [GeForce4 420 Go] (rev a3)
drax@ubuntu:~$ lsusb
Bus 001 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 004 Device 002: ID 054c:0069 Sony Corp. Memorystick MSC-U03 Reader
Bus 004 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 002 Device 002: ID 046d:c50b Logitech, Inc. Cordless Desktop Optical
Bus 002 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 003 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
drax@ubuntu:~$
I'm off to install slackware (*crosses fingers*)
-
what about dvorak ?
lol. Every OS supports the dvorak keyboard layout.
-
If you're BIOS is buggy you MIGHT be able to try linuxbios.
http://linuxbios.org/index.php/Main_Page
http://linuxbios.org/Supported_Motherboards
Do I wish mine was supported or what..
It mightn't be able to boot FreeBSD yet.
-
If you're BIOS is buggy you MIGHT be able to try linuxbios.
http://linuxbios.org/index.php/Main_Page (http://linuxbios.org/index.php/Main_Page)
http://linuxbios.org/Supported_Motherboards (http://linuxbios.org/Supported_Motherboards)
Do I wish mine was supported or what..
It mightn't be able to boot FreeBSD yet.
It is not supported ... and if it fucks up ... game over :D
Anyway ... using slackware 11.0 right now. It's actually quite nice ... it only took me 4 tries to install it ... here's some install notes in case someone else has problems:
I recommend using the "huge26.s" kernel unless you're trying for a server or a minimalist distro ... it's the only one that supports my Logitech USB mouse properly. (would also recommend JFS since you have the option)
Install lilo to MBR despite the "unsafe" warning.
If using the huge26.s kernel, after you install you gotta mount the DVD or CD again and installpkg /extra/linux-2.6.17.13/kernel-modules in order for ethernet and other things to work (might also wanna install kernel-source and k3b while you're in there).
Had to edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf for:
# dvorak keyboard
Option "XkbLayout" "dvorak"
# allow mousewheel
Option "Protocol" "Auto"
Remember to "adduser"
Damn lilo timeout is set to 1 min something by default ... had to change /etc/lilo.conf then run /sbin/lilo for a more reasonable value.
Other than that ... it's pretty straight-forward.
-
So how is slackware treating you Tex?
I wanted to install it and try it out, but the install CD didn't support my Areca RAID controller. There might have been a kernel on there that would have supported it but I didn't get into it that far.
-
It's great ... the first distro I really like ... cuz everything works as it should (with a bit of tweaking). I got everything I need to work perfectly ... hplip (hp-toolbox actually works unlike in FC), madwifi, nvidia drivers (hate to have to use em, but I can't play games without it). And, its very stable so far. It's really just what I need, supports many filesystems, has logical, easy-to-use packaging system, has many choices of packages ... with many more on the net, many window managers to choose from ... etc.
For RAID support you could either use the ataraid.i (2.4.x kernel w/ IDE, ATA, RAID support), raid.s (2.4.x kernel w/ SCSI, RAID support), or huge26.s (2.6.x kernel supports pretty much everything ... but is huge :))
Pre-built slackware kernels are here in case I missed one that also supports RAID:
ftp://slackware.mirrors.tds.net/pub/slackware/slackware-11.0/kernels/ (http://ftp://slackware.mirrors.tds.net/pub/slackware/slackware-11.0/kernels/)
-
Thank you for that review tex! it is excellent to finally see someone saying that slackware is a good distro.
i am sick of seeing people say how they wouldn't recommend it to a new linux user etc. in my opinion slackware is straightforward and does exactly what it says on the tin. it has the advantage as well that in a world of increasingly distro specific and GUI centric configuration tools, slackware is comparably more straightforward to configure, and does what a person would expect any *nix system to do, without too much extra distro specific research. with an ethic like that, it can't fail to be a good choice for a certain (and reasonably sized) segment of the potential linux userbase.
-
Well, but Slackware has a default runlevel of 3, which means command line interface. Lots of people will be scared shitless just to see it. All the curses config screens can be kinda daunting at first as well.
Of course the question has never been answered - if you can't use a command line (or navigate a curses menu), should you even be allowed to use Linux?
-
Of course the question has never been answered - if you can't use a command line (or navigate a curses menu), should you even be allowed to use Linux?
Uhh, "Linux" (as well as "GNU/Linux") is a massive generalisation and one area the hundreds of individual operating systems based on GNU/Linux do not share is usability.
New users who aren't all that interested in how things work should definitely stay away from Slackware (and Gentoo etc), while not necessarily Ubuntu (and Fedora Core etc).
Slackware is a great OS for those who are new to GNU/Linux and are interested in how things work, surely among the best ever for this purpose. That's why I spent something like six months on it (after being amazed by what I seen on Mandrake) and then went to Linux From Scratch and then to it-just-fucking-works Ubuntu.
-
Well, one thing I'd like to say is that if you are new and want to install Slackware, do read a guide before you try ... something like this (http://shilo.is-a-geek.com/instalslack2.html) (this will also help with the fear of curses interface and command line). Nothing in Slackware is more difficult than in any other distro ... and oftentimes is simpler and easier than most other distros.
The way I do things (I don't read the manual :)) I probably would not be able to install slackware without first using a more GUI intensive distro, but with plenty of opportunity to learn command-line (like FC ... too bad it kinda blows :()
-
Well, but Slackware has a default runlevel of 3, which means command line interface. Lots of people will be scared shitless just to see it. All the curses config screens can be kinda daunting at first as well.
oh dear. anybody that can't figure out how to type startx, or init 4 shouldn't be using slackware (or *ix) in my opinion. That's beneath the level of acceptable newbieness. In fact actually, i wouldn't be so brazen as to say they shouldn't be using it, but i would say that if they do use slack and they don't have at least a page of helpful one/two word commands to familiarise themselves with then they should expect a bit of a learning curve.
Of course the question has never been answered - if you can't use a command line (or navigate a curses menu), should you even be allowed to use Linux?
in a word, no, but see above.
New users who aren't all that interested in how things work should definitely stay away from Slackware (and Gentoo etc), while not necessarily Ubuntu (and Fedora Core etc).
they sure should. If they don't want to know how their PC works, then they should probably get somebody else to use it for them (check their emails, listen to their music etc). I am sure these don't-want-to-know-how-it-works users have had to deal with a number of issues and quirks during their windows life, so they can't complain that linux isn't suddenly as smooth as silk for them, especially if they won't make the effort to shift mentally to the new paradigm.
Slackware is a great OS for those who are new to GNU/Linux and are interested in how things work, surely among the best ever for this purpose. That's why I spent something like six months on it (after being amazed by what I seen on Mandrake) and then went to Linux From Scratch and then to it-just-fucking-works Ubuntu.
and most people probably should try out a few to see what they think.
-
If they don't want to know how their PC works, then they should probably get somebody else to use it for them (check their emails, listen to their music etc).
We'd have to ship in Africans if every such person wanted to do that ;)
I am sure these don't-want-to-know-how-it-works users have had to deal with a number of issues and quirks during their windows life, so they can't complain that linux isn't suddenly as smooth as silk for them, especially if they won't make the effort to shift mentally to the new paradigm.
The new paradigm is in the direction Ubuntu, FC etc are going.. And on these OSes they can well complain if "linux isn't suddenly as smooth as silk for them", because they're part of the target audience of these OSes.
I wouldn't even bother with slackware anymore. It was king for when I wanted to know how the individual OS components work (e.g. X11). Now I get it and slackware is mostly just a waste of my time (fuck having to go anywhere when a friend brings over a camera ... just plug the damn thing in and the photo manager automatically pops up. I wouldn't want to have that done in a rush on slackware).
-
I've found both Ubuntu and FC to be really buggy (especially new releases). Slackware is the way to go if you don't want serious buggyness.
-
I've found both Ubuntu and FC to be really buggy (especially new releases). Slackware is the way to go if you don't want serious buggyness.
Make sure you are extremely clear here - unless I'm mistaken, they're not buggy, they just don't support your shitty hardware very well. There's a difference.
-
Yeah, well many people have shitty hardware (at least that's what I saw on the Ubuntu forums ... there were hundreds of posts about bugs due to BIOS and other hardware problems).
As for FC6 ... it's fucked even without shitty hardware.
-
I had absolutely ZERO hardware issues with Ubuntu. I'm not top end at all.
AMD Athlon 2800+
Abit NF7S Motherboard
Nvidia on board sound device
Radeon 8500 video
Network everywhere ethernet card
-
Ok, whatever, hopefully there will be more people like you than me.
So, if you don't want to learn how Linux works (and perhaps some shell script that will simplify your life by a whole lot), have good hardware, and/or want a distro that looks and acts a lot like Window$ (except stability and security is much improved), then Ubuntu is for you.
If you want to learn how Linux works (and don't want to spend hours and hours compiling stuff from scratch), have shitty or buggy hardware, and/or want a distro that looks nothing like Window$, is fast, responsive, ultra stable, yet still easy to use, and you don't care too much for dependency checking, then Slackware is for you.
-
Oy you, there's no need to be nasty! To argue windows and ubuntu look alike is really silly. Gnome or KDE or xforce are, as you know, mearly frontends for a graphical usewr interface. I don't see where there are many options as far as a toolbar or 2, a few icons, whether on the desktop or on the toolbars, a sartish style button, a shutdown button and a clock...have I missed anything? what else is there? Based on that, you could argue any distro which uses any GUI such as Gnome KDE or XFCE ius windowish.
Besides, slackware scares me.
-
Slackware will facilitate learning about Linux. It was my first distribution, and I learned a lot from it. It's also very sleek and you can make a slackware install very small, as small as you want. Slackware is really very much like a hot-rod...
However, I went to the RPM-based distributions like RedHat and Caldera because they were alot easier to patch, and where I kept my boxes, that was important: one of my networks was essentially a world wide black-hat hacker target range, and the network admins didn't care, and when they did want to firewall the network, one moron made such a stink and spread so much FUD about network security being bad and causing more problems than it solved (and when anyone disagreed with him he started making personal attacks) that the whole idea was dropped.
I kept slackware around for lightweight stuff, like turning old 486's into Xterminals (did one on a 486 with 8 MB ram and a 60 MB hard disk, great XTERM), but if it had services, it got a distro that could be patched easily.
-
Oy you, there's no need to be nasty! To argue windows and ubuntu look alike is really silly. Gnome or KDE or xforce are, as you know, mearly frontends for a graphical usewr interface. I don't see where there are many options as far as a toolbar or 2, a few icons, whether on the desktop or on the toolbars, a sartish style button, a shutdown button and a clock...have I missed anything? what else is there? Based on that, you could argue any distro which uses any GUI such as Gnome KDE or XFCE ius windowish.
Besides, slackware scares me.
Ok, but it's more than that on Ubuntu, it's also those annoying pop-ups in the corner, saying click here to update, exactly like in Window$ ... as if someone liked it.
And the startup sound ... it's not much, and you can turn it off, but I get flashbacks :(
(http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/4673/phearsway6.gif)
However, I went to the RPM-based distributions like RedHat and Caldera because they were alot easier to patch,
Maybe you should try slapt-get (http://freshmeat.net/projects/slaptget/) ...
slapt-get is an APT-like system for Slackware package management. It allows you to search Slackware mirrors and third-party package sources (such as www.linuxpackages.net (http://www.linuxpackages.net)) for packages, compare them with installed packages, and install new packages or upgrade installed packages, all with a few simple commands.
I think it might be just as easy to update.
-
If I remember correctly, any distro can be set up for a start up sound, if you so desire. For guys like me, that turn the computer on, then go fix a cup of coffee and mess around in the kitchen, maybe go outside and light up a cigarette, the sound is nice. It lets me know the damned thing is running and ready. If it bugged me, then I would turn it off.
Yast and Yum can also be configured to do that pop up thing. It's just a matter of preference. Again, I kind of like that. I am a lazy computist. If it weren't for that, I MIGHT remember to update once a month at best, or just forget all together. Unless I'm bored and playing in the command line and just for shits and giggle do an apt-get update / apt-get upgrade to see if synaptic/yum/yast missed anything.
Maybe it's not that Ubuntu can do it, but rather it's done as a default that pisses you off so much? Now that I can certainly understand. A ot of *nix users WANT to customize thier machines the way they want them to run and want it to be just basic from the start. Every neat thing after that is something they did themselves. That is one of the many charms of linux. You have your own OS, not some boxed and packaged 3rd grade artwork that your forced to have, whether you like it or not.
-
Allota people talk about how uncustomizable Windows is. Am I missing something here? You can change your icons, you can change your wallpaper, you can change your fonts, you can change your window presentation. Exactly what else do you need to be changing?
-
you can't make your task bar transparent or have a picture on it!
I didn't say you couldn't. I was just stating that your options for customizing aren't as robust. You are correct though, you can change colors, icons positions and wall papers.
-
You can customize Window$ as much as Bill Gate$ will allow you to.
-
"You can customize Window$ as much as" Your skills "allow you to."
Just change the Shell(explorer.exe) and if you want something even sinistr use dll hooks.
Its just about the 2nd most tweakable thing since a *nix os
Though i've set my mind to install a free os on the system that i'm gonna buy this X-mas
-
Ubuntu or Debian
-
Make sure you are extremely clear here - unless I'm mistaken, they're not buggy, they just don't support your shitty hardware very well. There's a difference.
i am sorry, but this comment is mindless.
you appear to be saying that FC and Ubuntu work perfectly unless the user has "shitty" hardware.
I am sure you are aware that Slackware is not well known for working easily with "shitty" hardware, and so your point that people with shitty hardware would prefer slackware to FC or Ubuntu is patently ridiculous.
Further, i would say that FC and Ubuntu are both buggy in my experience, on more than one PC, however both would obviously be excellent if they actually worked. Same with Mandriva.
Slack on the other hand allows you to configure the system how you want it. I don't see this (as many no doubt do) as a pointless bashing session between the config happy distros and the windoid distros but i do think it's important to realise that whatever computing background users are from, some will prefer to config easily and some will prefer the it-just-(allegedly)-works ethos instead. If a person is one type, then they will probably prefer the corresponding type of distro.
This is why "what's the best distro?" is a meaningless question, and more importantly all the possible answers are meaningless, including the "FC6 is buggy as hell" and "Slackware is solid as a rock" type replies, because for a new user, they have no yardstick to test these comments against.
The people who are so eager to promote their favourite distro of the moment should think for a second about what sort of system the new user in question actually wants before just telling them ubuntu's the best and that's it.
-
ha! and all you people saying how easy windows is to customise make me laugh!
customising windows is simply a case of getting some shitty nagware from tucows or download.com (probably with a name like TweakPC or XPConfigPro or some shit) and hoping it doesn't screw your PC up too much when you try it.
With open source software you get software that has been tested and bugfixed by a number of independent respondents, doesn't contain nagware or malware (for the above reason, generally speaking) and i also find that *ix software is easier to configure, like in rc files and with CLI switches et cetera. also, i have yet to see a windows package with a decent man page.
Also, there are many applications of windows (in a corporate or small business environment) where something could be done a lot easier except that a certain option isn't available in some closed source software they're using. often the equivalent open source software (and historically linux software is mostly open source while windows software is mostly closed nag/payware) is perfect for them and doesn't have the annoying restrictions, let alone the cost. of course this is all very general, but i am just saying that there's no correct answer for which is more configurable, windows or linux, but you can see that a lot of people could have experiences which convince them that one is more "configurable" than the other.
-
Did I mention I did say more robust? (Wadup tex!)
-
Great posts Calum :thumbup:, now people are gonna call me a "yes man" for agreeing fully with you.
Anyway, there is one comment I would like to make. That is how can we recommend distros to people and take into account what they might want ?
I realize there are tests to supposedly suggest to you the best distro. Somehow they haven't managed to suggest to me a distro that I really liked. (not one of them said Slackware).
Maybe the best thing for those new to Linux to do is try all the damn distros ! Go to http://distrowatch.com/ (http://distrowatch.com/) , get the top 10 - 20 distros, burn the fuckers, and try em out (that's what I did ... but skipped a few). But make sure you try every single one before settling, and even after you settle you should still keep an eye out for newer or better distros. I suppose it'll waste a lot of CDs/DVDs so get some re-writables.
-
i am sorry, but this comment is mindless.
you appear to be saying that FC and Ubuntu work perfectly unless the user has "shitty" hardware.
I consider "buggyness" to be internal stuff, like kernel panics, memory leaks, IRQ conflicts, "blue screens", freezes, etc. This sort of stuff doesn't happen much in Fedora or Ubuntu - there are literally millions of satisfied users out there. So according to my definitions, Fedora and Ubuntu are not buggy. Neither are Slackware or Debian. Of course all distros could use better hardware support, both for older and newer configurations.
I am sure you are aware that Slackware is not well known for working easily with "shitty" hardware, and so your point that people with shitty hardware would prefer slackware to FC or Ubuntu is patently ridiculous.
As it turned out, Slackware's older kernel worked well with Tex's hardware. And my definition of "shitty" here kinda includes stuff that is so old that support for it has been taken out of 2.6.x kernels. I'm not sure why Slackware doesn't use the 2.6 kernel yet, nor what the implications would be of backing FC6 out to a 2.4 kernel. So installing Slackware just to get the 2.4 kernel that's compatible with your hardware might be the quickest way to get things moving.
(I suspect that if the 2.4 kernel from Slackware worked, it's because some particular module was included, and thus building a 2.6 kernel with that particular module installed would solve the problem - however, that doesn't always work)
-
ha! and all you people saying how easy windows is to customise make me laugh!
customising windows is simply a case of getting some shitty nagware from tucows or download.com (probably with a name like TweakPC or XPConfigPro or some shit) and hoping it doesn't screw your PC up too much when you try it.
With open source software you get software that has been tested and bugfixed by a number of independent respondents, doesn't contain nagware or malware (for the above reason, generally speaking) and i also find that *ix software is easier to configure, like in rc files and with CLI switches et cetera. also, i have yet to see a windows package with a decent man page.
I was more referring to graphical customization. There's not much that Gnome/Metacity can do that unmodified Windows XP cannot do. Probably a couple little things, but nothing major.
Then again, I haven't downloaded little shareware programs to extend Windows in a long long time. Actually, that's not true - I put EditPadLite on every Windows computer I use - cuz Notepad is so useless.
-
As it turned out, Slackware's older kernel worked well with Tex's hardware. And my definition of "shitty" here kinda includes stuff that is so old that support for it has been taken out of 2.6.x kernels. I'm not sure why Slackware doesn't use the 2.6 kernel yet, nor what the implications would be of backing FC6 out to a 2.4 kernel. So installing Slackware just to get the 2.4 kernel that's compatible with your hardware might be the quickest way to get things moving.
(I suspect that if the 2.4 kernel from Slackware worked, it's because some particular module was included, and thus building a 2.6 kernel with that particular module installed would solve the problem - however, that doesn't always work)
But, I'm running the 2.6.x kernel. I tried the 2.4.x, but it wouldn't support my Logitech mouse. BTW, my hardware is only 3 years old, and is probably better than that of most people here.
$ uname -r
2.6.17.13
-
got that *cough*11 years old*ahem* right
-
Okay then, why did Slackware work for you where others did not? If it's not the kernel, what is it? X11 version? Drivers available on the installation media? A kernel module not being installed? It seems strange to me that Slackware would just magically work for you where nothing else did.
-
It's probably the kernel I'm betting ... at least from what I got from this post:
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=120046&postcount=26
-
it'll be the kernel and how it's configured.
when i say configured, i mean which modules are loaded by default. different distros choose different modules to load by default in their system's kernel, and some have clever autodetection things that load modules or don't, based on what they think you have attached. Slack isn't too hot on autodetecting things, but it is excellent for recompiling a kernel with only the hardware support you need. This is something i have never had to do in FC however if i did have to do it, because of some shitty hardware, i suspect it would be a lot harder than in slack, based on true testimonials from the faithful.
worker, i thought we were talking about shitty hardware like USB printers, proprietary graphics cards and winmodems, but maybe i am behind the times a bit (haven't seen a proper winmodem bitch on this board for years now actually!)