Any Linux users?

[lordofduct]

I just like putting a fair light on everything.

I thought that's what I was doing.

But I turn everything into a debate. It's no fun otherwise.

I think the two of us are the same... we think we are putting a fair light on things. But alas the two of us love a debate.

My friends yell at me all the time because of how much I debate, but I feel how do you not learn without discussing and one of the fastest ways to create a information filled discussion is to have a debate. You get to learn any person's side and opinion of it along with what facts they have.

They misread me... they think I don't like them because of their differing opinion. Which is totally wrong, I want to learn more and more about their opinion. Oh so much more... I love the differences in opinions and ideas people have.

So I put my hand out and say... I do not mean to sound condescending; I merely appreciate your opinion and love hearing more of yours and everybodies (hence the reason I live on so many forums).

[Mozgus]

I think the two of us are the same... we think we are putting a fair light on things. But alas the two of us love a debate.

It's better in real life though. You don't get banned as often.

[rattboi]

I don't want to drag this on, but seriously, Mozgus, if you couldn't follow what lordofduct said about terminal, or chose not to learn for whatever reason, I feel really bad for you. Seriously, it's a simple thing to learn, and it IS easier than finding the latest codec pack for XP, and getting some kind of decent media player for Windows (this is easier now, with VLC), seeing how WMP sucks the balls so much.

Also, there's either EasyUbuntu or Automatix, two easy-to-install scripts that have GUIs with checkboxes to add most whatever you want. You want the new Compiz 3d desktop crap, check it off. You want all the w32 codecs, check it off. You want Skype, check it off. You want WINE for running some Win32 program you can't live without, check it off. It's really easy. It sounds like you just don't like learning, when you discount things that fast....

[Mozgus]

I don't want to drag this on, but seriously, Mozgus, if you couldn't follow what lordofduct said about terminal, or chose not to learn for whatever reason, I feel really bad for you. Seriously, it's a simple thing to learn, and it IS easier than finding the latest codec pack for XP, and getting some kind of decent media player for Windows (this is easier now, with VLC), seeing how WMP sucks the balls so much.

WMP isn't that great, and I don't use it, but it's much better then Ubuntu's media player.

Why would I want to learn "terminal"? It's another god damn computer langauge we don't need! Do you know what year this is? We don't have to type out code to run an application anymore. That was half of the reason Windows was invented; to end that archaic shit. It's not about stupidity or laziness. It's about efficiency. If I had to type code just to open and run every single command for every single tool, I'd never get anything done, and I'd be constantly forgetting what my goal was to begin with.

Don't even pretend that it's hard to get codecs for Windows. All you need is a build of Xvid, and Winamp classic. You'll be able to play every main format right off the bat, unless you insist on playing some wack-ass pirated movie encoded in some underground format.

Also, there's either EasyUbuntu or Automatix, two easy-to-install scripts that have GUIs with checkboxes to add most whatever you want. You want the new Compiz 3d desktop crap, check it off. You want all the w32 codecs, check it off. You want Skype, check it off. You want WINE for running some Win32 program you can't live without, check it off. It's really easy. It sounds like you just don't like learning, when you discount things that fast....

If this is true, then good for them, but it wasn't around back when I tried Ubuntu, like I said. So don't get lippy. Once again, I tried Ubuntu a long while ago. I am not on it as we speak. Do you understand?

If I find a 4th spare comp around here, maybe I'll test it out just to see how that feature works. I wonder if Ubuntu can run on an old dusty 266mhz Dell?

[lordofduct]

If I find a 4th spare comp around here, maybe I'll test it out just to see how that feature works. I wonder if Ubuntu can run on an old dusty 266mhz Dell?

I've put ubuntu 5.? hoary hedgehog on many very old computers as low as 333mhz (66mhz FSB) with as low as 32MB of RAM. It ran kinda slow, not unbearably slow... just kinda slow. Loading very active webpages using flash (like MySpace) took sometime even on cable and doing a lot of things at once was annoying (like listening to MP3s via onboard sound, surfing the web and using a word processor simultaneousily).

If you wanna go that low of computer I'd step out of the ubuntu range and dive into Vector Linux (it has very low requirements but is functional). They have even lower requirement distros such as DamnSmallLinux and PuppyLinux (so small they fit on 64MB flash cards and can boot directly into and run from RAM if you have 64+MBs). The only things I don't like about them are the GUIs are really cramped and ugly... in my opinion. But it is amazing the amount of speed you get out of them! When booted into RAM DSL and Puppy run REALLY fast! (I've ran them on ancient 386s that can't even boot Windows 3.1 with out coughing and choking)

That is one of the downfalls to Linux and a reason why it is hard to join together as a full force instead of having so many distros. Each distro has it's purpose... some are geared toward Sound Editing performance, others to Video, some to classic computers and others to over all general use. You can build a distro from the kernel up geared specifically to what you want made to use every last processor cycle soulily for what you want them to.



The drag to all of this is that it gets convoluted, requires a lot of learning and is just plain out difficult if you don't have the time. Hence the distro communities... someone figures out the REALLY difficult shit for you and leaves with a GUI you have to get used to. Still difficult, but not as much of a headache... it's kinda like moving from Windows to OSX... they are no where alike in anything.

atleast linux has 2 button mouse support! (I hate OSX... with a fucking passion!)

[lordofduct]

I will also add, I've used Ubuntu Hoary Hedgehog on an old OC'd machine upto 300mhz (I didn't test clocked normal, I OC'd out of the box from 66mhz 3X to 100mhz 3X) and ran it as a file/TCP-IP/printer server and it ran amazingly well. It was able to handle 3 users simultaneousily accesing files, printing and surfing the web while I was still able to remotely log in as root and change settings. (I didn't test past 3 users as that was the limit).

What I'm saying is the GUI is where a lot of slow down will come in. So if you get a trimmer X-Windows system you can gain some more speed.

KDE and Gnome are well known and really graphically heavy. In certain applications one runs faster then the other... but either way they are both very intensive. Ubuntu uses Gnome out of box, you can put KDE on it or DL KUbuntu which is Ubuntu with KDE out of box (hence the K)

After that there are tons of window managers based directly on X-Windows or deviants of. Some are very trim and fast, others not so trim and slow. Some are very pretty while others are very bland.

It would be like comparing Windows 3.1 graphically to XP. XP is insanely more appealing... 3.1 is UGLY! But if you don't care about low res control buttons and basic text everywhere that isn't visually attractive... you can gain a lot in speed! (Be warned, some can be even uglier then win 3.1. I believe some were made for the nostaligia factor looking a lot like old Tandy machines, IBM or other ancient GUIs)


------------
Just another interesting note. Another attractive thing about Linux is it's versatility too. For instance you can build a very basic machine of merely a small mobo, a stick of RAM, P3 processor and a PXE LAN Card (No hdd or disk drives needed). You can then store the boot image anywhere you want, a server, your other computer on your network, the internet on your website. The PXE LAN card will then DL the boot image and boot into linux fully from the network/internet and you can then use whatever network storage device for saving files (including FTP sites, file servers, ANYTHING with in reason) and flash drives if you have USB. The idea that you can say take a Mini-ITX board and some RAM and toss it in a paper thin case and have a fully functional computer is pretty freaking cool!

And if you don't have a PXE LAN card then you can use and regular NIC and a floppy drive with the simple boot perimeters on it to do the same thing. Which then includes another storage medium for files... floppy.

But as Mozgus points out... some of this takes learning and time. And some are even for just novelty to the normal consumer. Like this network bootable computer probably isn't useful to most people. It is to say me... I have people in my house who want to just read email and surf the web (shopping, MySpace, PORN). This allows me to take old crap I have lieing around the house and build everyone there own personal computer that then runs off a central server. This also allows me to securely make sure nothing bad happens to them on the internet.

For instance, I've had my Windows machine for 5+ years. Never had a virus scanner on it until 6 months ago nor a Spyware scanner. Never once did I have a virus or spyware. Since my cousin moved in and started using my computer my computer is getting filled with crap. Now I can give him his own machine to break... and it will be harder for him to break then a windows machine and I don't need to be afraid of my stuff being stolen.

[Mozgus]

If you wanna go that low of computer I'd step out of the ubuntu range and dive into Vector Linux (it has very low requirements but is functional). They have even lower requirement distros such as DamnSmallLinux and PuppyLinux (so small they fit on 64MB flash cards and can boot directly into and run from RAM if you have 64+MBs). The only things I don't like about them are the GUIs are really cramped and ugly... in my opinion. But it is amazing the amount of speed you get out of them! When booted into RAM DSL and Puppy run REALLY fast! (I've ran them on ancient 386s that can't even boot Windows 3.1 with out coughing and choking)

I'm looking at these three right now. How easy are they work with? Harder then Ubuntu? Even more "terminal" work required? Cause I'll just skip them then.

[rattboi]

Depends what you're doing. I've used DamnSmallLinux a few times, and I don't remember needing terminal. I was just using it for web browsing and the like, like someone mentioned above. Still, it boots in like 45 seconds off a live cd, so it's cool.

Oh, what you said before about terminal being archaic and outdated. If that's the case, why do you think they still use it? It'd be easy to slap a TCL/TK frontend on some app as an installer (and some do), but this really limits quick expandibility, flexibility AND power. There's a reason why people use terminal, and that's because they like it. It's fast, and SUPER powerful. You can chain together commands in ways that are totally unintuitive in a GUI sense (although Apple with Automator kinda has the idea), but totally make sense from a textmode perspective.

Also, Windows hasn't gotten any further away from command-line. Win 3.1 was built on DOS, and each newer version has a more powerful commandline environment, like Vista's new MSH, codenamed Monad. They moved TOWARD the power of a UNIX commandline.

[lordofduct]

I haven't tried Puppy... but it seems very similar in 'looks' to DSL

DSL as I said before 'looks' very cluttered and ugly, but it is very fast and useful when you consider the hardware you'll be running it on. Terminal is necessary if you only plan to use it for what it comes with... the basics. It has Terminal for any necessary expansion you may want to utilize terminal for... although of course there is still a way to get most things working without the use of terminal (just like in ubuntu... people usually just opt for terminal for particular reasons... just like rattboi says). And of course you can always customize the GUI yourself with any extra HDD space you have. It has X-Windows as a base so you just need to install a fancier version of KDE or Gnome for a more robust GUI... with the cost of speed though.

Vector Linux is the nicest in my opinion. A nice mix of speed to versatility and pretty looks. It runs slower then DSL or Puppy but you'll probably enjoy the nicer modern look of the GUI. The big downside is the installer used for it is very outdated and none graphical. It leaves you in a blue green command prompt sorta deal similar to that of the first few steps of installing windows. The downside I dislike with the installer is not in its looks... looks are just looks, whatever when this is only going to be used a few minutes. The problem comes in the verb choice in the installer. I don't know how to describe, but if you use it you'll totally get what I mean. Sometimes you may feel like your in a maze if you try to do a more custom install. Kinda bugged me... then again the last time I used it was like 2 years ago so maybe they updated the installer.

[Mozgus]

Eh, you guys lost me, but that was probably intentional.