- This topic has 32 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m trying to figure out which version of linux I’m going to use (dual boot with vista, of course) on my laptop with specs: 1.8ghz turion x2, 2gb ram, 160gb hdd, geforce 6150.
I have narrowed my search down to:
1. Ubuntu 9.04
2. Fedora 11 Don’t really want to deal with beta software all the *edited* time; also I want to make sure everything is installed, even non-open source apps (ex: flash)
3. OpenSUSE 11.1 Maybe someday when I feel more comfortable with Linux I will give it a shot
4. Mandriva 2009.1
Now I have never used opensuse so IDK how that distro holds up but it looks to be pretty solid. I used to like Fedora back in the day but I have read that they rely too much on developmental builds of software, making me worry it will be less stable. I used mandriva earlier in the year and I thought it was really nice. Ubuntu looks boring but everyone seems to like it.
What should I choose? I am using UNC’s very fast pipes to download all of them; ubuntu, fedora and mandriva are CDs, openSUSE is a dvd (and still downloading)
Ubuntu out of the box is boring. You can set it up to look awesome and function well.
It’s also widely supported which helps. There is a huge Nerd Force behind ubuntu.
I’ve previously used Mandrake and Fedora so I have to recommend options 2 and 4.
Ubuntu is extremely popular although I’m not really sure why as, like you said, it looks extremely boring on fresh install. Guess they like it because it fits best with the linux mandate that you have to force or trick your OS into doing what you want instead of it doing it by default.
ok here’s another question: KDE or Gnome? I know Fedora comes with both, Mandriva is KDE I think, Ubuntu is Gnome, idk what openSUSE is.
I honestly don’t really know the differences between the two other than KDE’s taskbar looks more similar to windows than Gnome’s does.
1. Ubuntu has the best out of the box configurations and one of the largest software libraries. It also has an easy to use driver installation service that automatically sets up things like xorg.conf for you so that you don’t have to mess with it or compile the driver from source. apt is an awesome package management software and .deb > .rpm. No package selection at install.
2. Fedora also has a mega repo but most of them are “release early and release often” builds that can sometimes be buggy. Most commonly used software will be stable enough to use. More cutting edge or new software will be more buggy. Uses yum which is a decent package manager and rpm packages which are well supported and easy to understand once you get the naming scheme down. More installation options (package selection) can either make your install easier or more complicated. Generally has a newer kernel than Ubuntu.
3. OpenSUSE only just became “open” a few months ago. It hasn’t followed many of Linux’s “fundamental philosophies”. It does have a nice library and is supported by two mega-corporations (Microsoft and Novell). For these reasons, I’m not a huge fan of “Open”SUSE.
4. Mandriva was the original Ubuntu. The “Linux for dummies” back when it was still Mandrake. For this reason it’s also good out of the box like Ubuntu. If it were me, Ubuntu would be #1 and Mandriva #2. It also uses rpm package management which I’m still not a huge fan of.
You probably knew all of this but maybe some people didn’t. I’d go with Ubuntu (and did) and never look back.
Nickname said:
ok here’s another question: KDE or Gnome? I know Fedora comes with both, Mandriva is KDE I think, Ubuntu is Gnome, idk what openSUSE is.I honestly don’t really know the differences between the two other than KDE’s taskbar looks more similar to windows than Gnome’s does.
GNOME is really plain and easy to use. It doesn’t come with as many configuration options as KDE does. For this reason a lot of people feel like it’s too dumbed down and that they sacrifice usability to make sure people don’t break things. tl;dr it’s OS X. If you break it you really really *edited*ed something up.
KDE looks and performs way better. It has TONS of configuration options and TONS of configuration options that can break your system. KDE also has a lot more applications developed for it than GNOME does. Some of them are useless (ie Koffice, who’s going to use that over OOo?) But does have some nice applications like superkamba for desktop widgets. KDE also changed with 4.0 so that EVERYTHING is a widget on the desktop. Your actual desktop is a widget that you can turn on and off. Same thing with the taskbar, etc. Once you get used to it, it’s a really really nice concept. tl;dr this is what you should use because you (Nickname) are not retarded. I actually deleted my taskbar and built a new one from scratch because I didn’t like the way the default one looked. That’s the power of KDE.
Anyone know if fedora is still the pure open distro it used to be; aka it doesn’t have anything that isn’t open-source built in which includes things like flash and some of the nvidia/ati drivers? Cause if it is, I really don’t want that. I get easily annoyed trying to install all of that stuff from command line, and I would like it to work pretty much out of the box if possible.
Nickname said:
Anyone know if fedora is still the pure open distro it used to be; aka it doesn’t have anything that isn’t open-source built in which includes things like flash and some of the nvidia/ati drivers? Cause if it is, I really don’t want that. I get easily annoyed trying to install all of that stuff from command line, and I would like it to work pretty much out of the box if possible.Let’s put it this way. My wireless did not work on install in Fedora and it does after activating the driver in Ubuntu. Manually configuring ndiswrapper is not fun…look it up or ask falcon.
ok I have taken Fedora out of the running. openSUSE is on the edge but I haven’t really heard any reason why it is worse than the others. Guess I need to do some research. EDIT: Scratch that, seems openSUSE can be a real *edited* for people that don’t know what they are doing, and while I am confident I can figure out whatever it throws at me, I already spend 40+ hours a week fixing computers so I really don’t want to spend too much time doing it at home as well.
Nickname said:
I already spend 40+ hours a week fixing computers so I really don’t want to spend too much time doing it at home as well.And you’re installing linux…. (?)…
so the laptop came in the mail today, the guy left windows 7 rc on it; I went ahead and installed ubuntu on it. I spent a little time tweaking it, including making a custom panel that works more like in windows. I also used the packet manager and installed the microsoft fonts which was definitely good for website viewing and i also installed flash which was SO much easier than I remembered. Finally I installed songbird, which required me uninstalling another package to get to work but so far so good. I messed with the theme somewhat and its starting to look pretty good. I think im also gonna install mandriva on this so I can compare ubuntu and mandriva side-by side to see which is better.
ok so here is my ubuntu setup.
My next step unfortunately will involve my ubuntu setup getting killed as I will be putting a different hard drive in the laptop and I want to dual boot with vista enterprise anyways… I might install my copy of mandriva just for fun so I can see how it compares on the same hardware. Overall though I like ubuntu quite a bit.
Also this laptop gets amazingly good battery life; looking like 5-5.5 hours, though that is on the 12 cell battery. Still though with all the *edited* the turion x2 takes, that is pretty good, especially cause that is on linux which I assume would have less pwr mgt support.
Any word on when linux is going to get over themselves and write a windows compatible bootstrap that can be used in the xp/vista/win7 bootloader?
You know they can do it and from the outside looking in it looks like the only thing stopping them is their own pride. “Use our bootloader or you don’t use our OS”.
MasterP said:
Any word on when linux is going to get over themselves and write a windows compatible bootstrap that can be used in the xp/vista/win7 bootloader?You know they can do it and from the outside looking in it looks like the only thing stopping them is their own pride. “Use our bootloader or you don’t use our OS”.
What are you even talking about? You obviously have no idea how Linux boots.
so… linux bootloader can load linux and windows while windows bootloader can only load windows… how is that linux’s fault again?
I should also point out that the Windows bootloader can in fact boot Linux. I’m not sure what Kip is talking about. Either one can boot the other.
Kuros said:
I should also point out that the Windows bootloader can in fact boot Linux. I’m not sure what Kip is talking about. Either one can boot the other.Source?
O btw, I’m talking about having linux NOT hardcoded into the bootsector or MBR. To my knowledge the methods used to boot linux from the vista loader still require linux be hardcoded into the bootsector. I have yet to see what you claim I don’t know about be done with XP’s bootloader.
Nickname said:
so… linux bootloader can load linux and windows while windows bootloader can only load windows… how is that linux’s fault again?I never said it was linux’s fault, I just asked when they were going to recognize that the majority of people either use windows or dualboot linux with windows. Why they aren’t willing to let whichever OS the USER wants control the bootsector and MBR is something I find hypocritical.
MasterP said:
Source?O btw, I’m talking about having linux NOT hardcoded into the bootsector or MBR. To my knowledge the methods used to boot linux from the vista loader still require linux be hardcoded into the bootsector. I have yet to see what you claim I don’t know about be done with XP’s bootloader.
I don’t need a source I know how to do it. All you need to do is make the grub stage 1 boot loader into a .bin and point boot.ini at it. Then you can boot Linux from the Windows boot loader menu. This does not require Linux to be “hardcoded” into the bootsector (which it doesn’t do anyways, Linux doesn’t have a boot loader. All it has is init which must be initialized by a boot loader such as grub, lilo, or ext linux) and wouldn’t work if Linux was “hardcoded” into the mbr.
Kuros said:
This does not require Linux to be “hardcoded” into the bootsector (which it doesn’t do anyways, Linux doesn’t have a boot loader. All it has is init which must be initialized by a boot loader such as grub, lilo, or ext linux)Where do you think GRUB latches in at?
There’s a very specific process that an OS must go through to boot. The computer doesn’t see an OS and magically decide to start booting it. Linux is no different. Now if you want to split hairs and say linux doesn’t control the mbr or bootsector knowing full well that GRUB does then you’re essentially arguing to argue as linux is the only OS that uses it. It’d be like saying Microsoft BCD controls the boot process, not windows when you know *edited* well only Vista/Win2008/Win7 use it.
Nickname:
MasterP said:
I never said it was linux’s fault… Why they aren’t willing to let whichever OS the USER wants control the bootsector and MBR is something I find hypocritical.MasterP said:
Where do you think GRUB latches in at?There’s a very specific process that an OS must go through to boot. The computer doesn’t see an OS and magically decide to start booting it. Linux is no different. Now if you want to split hairs and say linux doesn’t control the mbr or bootsector knowing full well that GRUB does then you’re essentially arguing to argue as linux is the only OS that uses it. It’d be like saying Microsoft BCD controls the boot process, not windows when you know *edited* well only Vista/Win2008/Win7 use it.
Nickname:
I’m saying that you never need to put grub anywhere near the mbr to load Linux. You’re saying you can’t do it thru the Windows chainloader and I’m telling you you can. Take grub (not installed) make it into a .bin file and put it on C: (again NON LINUX) and point boot.ini at it (again NOT IN LINUX). The Windows bootloader will see the extra OS in the boot.ini file which you then select. It goes into the grub.bin file and starts init from that which loads Linux.
tl;dr you can load Linux without putting grub in the MBR.
Would there happen to be a set of instructions somewhere that are a little more detailed?
Btw, boot.ini is old news.
MasterP said:
Would there happen to be a set of instructions somewhere that are a little more detailed?Btw, boot.ini is old news.
In the words of our lord almighty Nickname.
Yeah I did google that, what I got was 100% contrary to what you’ve posted in this thread.
Hence why I asked for your particular set of instructions.
If you want to use Fedora, but don’t like the developmental software, try CentOS. It is basically RedHat without all the RedHat network package and support built in. Lots of places use it as a very stable and solid platform. My web host uses it for all their services and Metrostat uses it as well.
I’m currently running it on that temporary gaming server I let you guys borrow a while back.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.