Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Noell

Linux/Ubuntu

16 posts in this topic

Okay, so I made a huge mistake by loading the Vista software that came with my pavillion onto my desktop PC. Turns out that the registration code is faulty and is only compatible with my laptop [duh] ... so I've been sorting through other various operating systems that I could load onto my "now useless" PC. :blink:

I wanted to know if Linux-Ubuntu would be a good choice. So far that's the only one I've heard of and liked.

Any suggestions?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you have have little *nix experience, use ubuntu.

7.04 is very user friendly.

Edited by Zal91
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes down to which distro to choose you really need to think about what you want out of it and what you want it to do. The bottom line is that Linux is Linux, there is nothing that one will do that another wont. They all use the same kernel (though different versions and some have patches that others don't) and the gnu tools. What differs about the distributions is the software that they come with, their philosophical views about Linux (stance on open source and different licensing), and package management. Personally I like Fedora and Slackware but it all depends what you like.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about the faulty Windows thing; you could contact Microsoft/Who ever made the computer, but I like the Linux idea.

Well, Ubuntu is a popular first choice, because of how easy it is to use, though this *can* be a problem. First, ubuntu has a GUI (Graphical User Interference) installer that does basically everything for you. This isn't a huge problem, but people should know that not all Linux is like that, though most are starting to get into LiveCD GUI installers. I personally don't like the Ubuntu installer, it has crased on me three times while trying to install, and while I was using the LiveCD it would turn it self off at random times. The actual Ubuntu Distro is completely diffrent however, but more on that later. I personally don't like the partition interference, it makes me feel clumsier then when I use fdisk. You have to reboot twice, do you not? For most Windows users, this is great; I believe Vista has something like 6 reboots? The two reboots isn't too bad, but it doesn't seem necessary. The installer installs any programs it feels, thus if you are running on slim hardware it could mess things up. However, for most new Linux users, they won't know what to install, and what to not install.

Next, when you first boot up, most Windows users find this amazing: there are no "You need to install this!", "Your system is insecure!", or whatever it is. This is nice. When you first boot up the first thing you should do is connect to the internet. This is easy, and I like how easy it is. I hate configuring internet connection. After that is done, you want to install some programs that it didn't come with, and you find out that you can't compile from source be defualt. This is an extremely stupid idea on the creators of Ubuntu, but it's not a problem, I can use the "sudo apt-get install build-essentials" command, but it's so god damn hard to find a terminal, which is under Programs->Accessories (a terminal isn't an accessory buddy <_< ). The apt system is nice for beginners, but learning how to install from source is more important. Apt teachs bad habits, and when I first used Ubuntu (my first distro), and didn't find a program in the Synaptic Package Manager, I was extremely confused on how to install it. I was looking through this book I got with Ubuntu, and then I found out the "./configure && make && make install". It said "Compiling from source is for the old Linux gurus". Is this the impression Ubuntu is giving?

Next up, the GUI. I hate gnome, so I put Fluxbox on there. Alright, that goes fine. But what is with this Ubuntu(gnome), Kubuntu(KDE), Xubuntu(XFCE), Fluxbuntu(Fluxbox)? I mean, they have to make a diffrent distro for every graphical enviorment? Is the user too stupid to A) "apt-get install [package]", B|) Go through Synaptic and find the package, or last, C) Manually install from source/binaries. They should just ask you what Graphical Eviorment should be set by defualt during the instalation, and have a "If not sure" option for beginners, which install a default graphical enviorment.

After using Ubuntu for a while, I knew only a little about Linux. They way it auto-mounts devices? I mean maybe if you are new to Linux, but it isn't actual learning. Though lets say I plug in an external mouse into the computer, it is nice to have immediate usage with that mouse.

Now don't get me wrong, Ubuntu works. It's goal is to be usable by everyone, and even though it maybe be a bit "too user friendly". Hell, I'm even using Ubuntu 6.06 right now (I would be using slackware, but I was fooling around and really fucked it up). Ubuntu is a stable, it doesn't crash (sometimes firefox doesn't like watching youtube, but whatever), nor does it have memory leaks. Ubuntu is good for people with no Linux experience, but at the same time, it's not.

And my last rant on Ubuntu (for this post, atleast :P):

The philosophy of Linux is "do it yourself". I'm don't think Ubuntu meets that. It seems as if Ubuntu is trying to be the Windows of the Linux world.

Two quizs to see what distro you should run:

A popular one - Though it is always Ubuntu?

I personaly like this one

Also: Zal91 and livinded gave you good advice; take it.

xandros ftw!

Why don't you run Vector Linux?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go Ubuntu, and use EasyUbuntu to get it up and running seamlessly.

Unless you are going for the knowledge route, instead of an instant easy OS. Then Use Ubuntu withoot jumping right to EasyUbuntu, or even better, Debian. Both have a wealth of support out there, and Debian is more free (as in speech) if that is important to you, which it probably is not at this point in the learning curve. Of course these are just my opinions like Livended said, and you will get 15 different opinions I am sure. It would be hard to hold the argument that any distro other than Ubuntu is easier to use for someone new to Linux, or has better default hardware detection out of the box though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a first look at Linux, go with kubuntu (gnome sucks), but make sure to follow Vector's advice and look into the "old school" methods of operation, if you really care.

I will offer my opinion separately and also a slightly different perspective on Vector's attitude toward ubuntu. I think Linux sucks. I use FreeBSD. But aside from that, I think there's something to be said for Ubuntu appealing to people that are more experienced Linux users. I've been using Linux and other unix systems for six years. I have no interest in manually mounting my drives. I know how to do all that, but after doing it for years, it's a pain in the ass. I started off on Slackware, back when Linux really sucked (way more than it does now). It was cool, though. I figured out how to do all sorts of shit pretty quickly. I imagine most people could. Operating a Linux system, even in an old-school fashion, is not rocket science. Therefore, it can be argued that such tasks are fundamentally trivial. Unless you plan on doing software development or seek a much deeper knowledge of these systems, there is no reason to deal with learning operation methods that, unless you deal with this stuff professionally or simply pine for CLI, are fast becoming archaic. I have one computer that indeed can boot to a partition upon which Kubuntu is installed. When I need to dick around or test something in Linux, I'll take the easy way out and save myself the time. Screw the "hard core" distros, I say!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd recommend trying some Live CD's. I personally like Feisty Fawn, but that might not be right depend on you. Try a few out and go from there. If you haven't used Linux, just remember one thing. It is not Windows, so don't expect it to be. Good luck!

P.S. I agree that Kubuntu is better, but Gnome has it's good points.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know you want to do some leet h4xing! Get BackTrack!

Currently im using Ubuntu as my first linux os. But i have another hdd that i will be installing BackTrack Onto. Unfortunately i'm sure you don't have that luxury. Can't you just install Windows XP (ripped version) and partition and run something like BackTrack as well?

If you're a first-time linux user like myself, be afraid. Be afraid of all the damn choices and configuration! It will get overwhelming.

Edited by Cface
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heheh my first *nix OS that I really got into was freebsd (not linux it is unix-like), It has great documentation and a great IRC channel I would say go with that you will learn allot but the learning curve will be steep (and worth it!) If you want something easier try Ubuntu or Saybion Linux both very nice very easy first distributions and have great hardware recognition.

Good luck :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I have to say it again?

Don't install BackTrack.

The tools create security holes. It is not fully compatible with most slackware packages.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For a first look at Linux, go with kubuntu (gnome sucks)

KDE Desktop is better for people who are used to Windows and *nix noobs, but Gnome is more stable and faster I think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOT INSTALL A LIVE CD ON YOUR HARD DRIVE.

The reasons are:

> With most Live CD's you cannot update packages and services that need patches for security holes

> You can get a working Linux install up just as quickly as a Live CD.

> You will have FAR better options for what you would like to install on your machine, with the things you will actually use.

> Live CD's are not meant to be installed (with exceptions). They are for temporary fixes, and replacements.

Do what you'd like though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I love all this linux talk, because linux kicks ass, but if I were you, I would do a dual boot with windows and linux. So when I feel like using linux, I select it on the BIOS startup screen, but let's face it, Windows still runs a crap load of stuff out there. So I would install XP Pro. Or home. Just XP. It's one of the best Windows out there. Vista sucks horribly. There should be a whole forum dedicated to flaming vista. The absolute only thing i find appealing in vista is the aero look. That's it. Go with Ubuntu, and XP dual boot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what be your specs if you have a good video card and miss vista's prettiness check out Beryl. its a alternative gui for Ubuntu and it makes vista look low end

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so this is my first post although i've been here for awhile listening and reading. So, hi. :] I've tried various Linux distributions. I have found that Ubuntu is by far the easiest to use and set up. Especially with 7.04. It is worth setting up something like Debian or Slackware, because in my opinion you have much more control over everything. I guess it depends on your situation, if you need a quick fix i would go for Ubuntu otherwise I would have to say take the time and setup Debian. It will be well worth it. Everyone else has given good advice, so thats my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so this is my first post although i've been here for awhile listening and reading. So, hi. :] I've tried various Linux distributions. I have found that Ubuntu is by far the easiest to use and set up. Especially with 7.04. It is worth setting up something like Debian or Slackware, because in my opinion you have much more control over everything. I guess it depends on your situation, if you need a quick fix i would go for Ubuntu otherwise I would have to say take the time and setup Debian. It will be well worth it. Everyone else has given good advice, so thats my opinion.

Welcome, Pharoh.

I'm with you. I've never been too much of a Slackware guy, but I put Debian on anything that I need to be stable. Ubuntu is the desktop distro. I put Ubuntu on the Macbook because it's current, and it ended up that damn near everything worked out of the box. I was just going to play around with it, but it's been weeks, and I hardly ever boot into OS X anymore. I know it's cliche to just recommend Ubuntu, but that's cool. I'll be a rebel and go with the crowd here :).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0