![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Tell us why your Linux distro is the best
- Thread starter N.V.M.
- Start date
I have tried many linux distros over the past 2 or so years. some, i have had running for quite a while, and some i had quit after a borked install. my goal with linux is to learn. nothing more. i never intend (since i only have 1 computer at the moment) to have linux as my main OS, since i rely on many things that windowsXP does for me. when i get a new computer, i do, however, have plans to have this one loaded solely with a *nix distro at all times. i should note that because i just want to learn, that is the reason i have tried so many distros. i want to learn linux, as well as the differences between each distro. i am, by no means, going to stop installing new ones once i found one i like.
here is my thoughts on all i have encountered:
Mandrake - This was my first linux os that i tried. considering i had never run, or even seen, a linux distro before, the installation was quite easy. this was the main reason i chose to try this distro first. it even automatically set up the boot loader to the mbr and had my dual boot set up correctly (i think anyway). Things that turned me off of this distro were that it seemed boring and no different than running another windows and iirc, i couldn't get things set up the way i wanted. the best feature this had was two desktop icons, one that would auto-mount the floppy drive and let you view/write to it, and another that was basically a kill app function that all you had to do was click on it, and then the app you wanted to die. very handy for a newb such as myself.
Redmond, now known as Lycoris - I decided to install this distro because i was still a newb w/linux and they were touting ease of use, just like mandrake, but i figured i'd just see what was different. not too damn much. there's not much else to say about this. i got bored after about a week of screwing with it.
Slackware - This was a great learning experience for me. There were a few kids at school who used this distro, which is what got me to try it. I knew it would be quite an experience as we started to install it. No GUI walkthrough. some of the things i had no idea what to put, which made it good that there was someone else there that did it, so i was able to watch and learn as he installed it on my friend's computer. I was then able to install it on my own comp, and set up the enlightenment window manager. This is where I learned to install apps from tar.gz files and use the the command shell. I also got experience with configuring and installing Lilo to the mbr. I should also mention this is where i got all my experience with configuring X straight from the XF86Config file. I had learned a lot from my experience with slack, and i may someday return to it. I don't remember what led me to uninstall it, but it was most likely because i reinstalled windows, and just never took the time to reset the mbr. either way, my ADD had surely kicked in and it was time to try something new anyway.
On to Red Hat - I installed this after slack because I just wanted to get linux running again and not have to worry about all the text stuff. I decided on red hat because i had heard it was easy to install and set up apps, not to mention the support, which seems to have a pretty big community of users willing to help. also, hardware support. I just wanted everything to be configured already since i was being lazy. I had this distro running probalby the longest of any i had installed. it was great once nvidia had combined their drivers from the 2 into the one simple install. i was then able to run ATITD in linux, and it was MUCH faster than the windows version. i considered that quite an accomplishment for me to get that running since i had problems with X. I enjoyed red hat as a high end learning experience, being able to tweak little things here and there, but nothing major like getting into the kernel. i certainly wouldn't consider this distro if you are wanting to learn the internals of an OS. [edit]one thing i hate about redhat is it's red hat network update thing. i thought it was great at first, but i installed a newer version of mozilla than the updater said was available, and it still wanted me to download the damn old version. it has no way of determining what is installed, unless that red hat network updater does it for you. this pissed me off quite much. also, after reinstalling (as i did many times), i had to recreate a new account with the RHN. i couldn't get my old one to work for some reason.[/edit]
FreeBSD - I tried FreeBSD because I wanted to try a unix based OS instead of a linux distro. in my attempt to install it, i seriously f*cked something up. i could no longer boot into windows, even after i used the recovery console with the fixmbr. fixboot, and chkdsk commands. i have no idea what it did, but i had to reinstall windows. i gave up on freebsd after this since i did not want to have to reinstall windows every time i screwed up the installation of freebsd. please note, however, that i do not attribute this as the fault of freebsd, but rather my own. sure, it woudl've been nice if freebsd was able to protect me from screwing everything up so badly, but it was still my own fault, and i will probably try it again someday.
Peanut - I tried Peanut linux for two reasons - it was fairly small and not many people talk about it (i'm always the guy the roots for the underdog in almost any contest). I wanted to give it a try, so i did, and just like freebsd, i gave up during the installation. it claimed to be easy to install, and it was, except for the fact that there was some kind of issue (possibly graphics driver, or maybe X) that when i was testing X (and kde) during the install, the graphics were in what seemed to be 256 color, and 640x480, despite the fact that i had told it to be in 16 bit color and at least 800x600. another weird thing was that none of my windows in kde had the title menus (drag bar). i could not move or resize any window i opened, and a lot of times the window would take up more than just the screen, and i couldn't see the OK and Cancel buttons. i'm sure it was my fault somehow, but regardless, i gave up instead of searching for help because i wanted to try other distros anyway.
Arch Linux - This is where i currently reside. I have not completed the install yet, but i find this distro very intriguing. Arch is, as it's users and website will tell you, very customizable and it is what you make of it. it is a very young distro, but i like it so far. I'm going to use this as my big learning experience of linux. i attempted the install a few times, but that was only because I have yet to get the grub config file right. everything you do in this install is by editing the config files yourself (after the installer installs your selected packages). if you don't know what the files *should* look like, you're pretty much screwed. which, i didn't, but after reading the grub manual, i will be able to keep my install there, cuz i now know how to make it load windows, rather than the guessing i was doing beforehand. i can already see how this is going to force me to learn things by reading manuals and other documentation. BIG NOTE: the biggest downfall of this distro is it's lack of documentation, since it's not very well known and quite new (i think it started in 2002 iirc). I was about to try gentoo when i came across arch. i think the two are pretty much comparable (from what i've read). both are not geared toward newbs (which i still am, but i'm taking the plunge anyway), both have a package manager (portage vs pacman), and both are highly configurable. i chose arch over gentoo for two reasons: first because i don't have the time to sit and wait while gentoo compiles everything and two (knowing me, probably the biggest reason) was, like i mentioned earlier, i root for the underdogs
. what is nice though from what i've noticed, is that doing a base install (only required packages to get a system running), takes but 10 minutes, and afterwhich i can figure out how to do everything. right now my problem are grub (which, like i said i know how to fix now) and getting my realtek nic set up. once i have that, i'll be in great shape for starting my educational journey into the realm of low-level linux goodness.
I still plan on trying more distros in the future. a list of what distros i want to try and why:
gentoo - strictly to see what all the hype is about. i think i'll get pretty much the same experience as i will with arch, but i will try it anyway just for the hell of it, and to do a comparison.
knoppix - just to have a cd-bootable OS in case i need it for whatever reason.
freebsd (again) - i want to learn the diffs between linux and unix, again, just for the hell of it.
openbsd - when i have my own house in many years, i will probably set up my own firewall/gateway. i like the security this os claims to have and if i can set it up correctly, i will love the security this os claims to have.
slackware (again) - i liked slack a lot. i'll give 'er another go sometime just to see what's in the new releases.
smoothwall - just to see how it works as a firewall.
sorcerer - i like the name
I highly doubt i'll get around to all of these distros any time soon, if at all, but as of now, these are the ones i'd like to at least try at some point.
one last note, if you are a newb to linux and just want to learn it, just like i am and do, i suggest not setting it up to be your main OS. i know it seems like common sense, but you know you're going to screw shit up, and when you do, you'll be glad you didn't write that 500 page dissertation on your linux box, now gone for good
well, i hope someone gets something useful out of this post
here is my thoughts on all i have encountered:
Mandrake - This was my first linux os that i tried. considering i had never run, or even seen, a linux distro before, the installation was quite easy. this was the main reason i chose to try this distro first. it even automatically set up the boot loader to the mbr and had my dual boot set up correctly (i think anyway). Things that turned me off of this distro were that it seemed boring and no different than running another windows and iirc, i couldn't get things set up the way i wanted. the best feature this had was two desktop icons, one that would auto-mount the floppy drive and let you view/write to it, and another that was basically a kill app function that all you had to do was click on it, and then the app you wanted to die. very handy for a newb such as myself.
Redmond, now known as Lycoris - I decided to install this distro because i was still a newb w/linux and they were touting ease of use, just like mandrake, but i figured i'd just see what was different. not too damn much. there's not much else to say about this. i got bored after about a week of screwing with it.
Slackware - This was a great learning experience for me. There were a few kids at school who used this distro, which is what got me to try it. I knew it would be quite an experience as we started to install it. No GUI walkthrough. some of the things i had no idea what to put, which made it good that there was someone else there that did it, so i was able to watch and learn as he installed it on my friend's computer. I was then able to install it on my own comp, and set up the enlightenment window manager. This is where I learned to install apps from tar.gz files and use the the command shell. I also got experience with configuring and installing Lilo to the mbr. I should also mention this is where i got all my experience with configuring X straight from the XF86Config file. I had learned a lot from my experience with slack, and i may someday return to it. I don't remember what led me to uninstall it, but it was most likely because i reinstalled windows, and just never took the time to reset the mbr. either way, my ADD had surely kicked in and it was time to try something new anyway.
On to Red Hat - I installed this after slack because I just wanted to get linux running again and not have to worry about all the text stuff. I decided on red hat because i had heard it was easy to install and set up apps, not to mention the support, which seems to have a pretty big community of users willing to help. also, hardware support. I just wanted everything to be configured already since i was being lazy. I had this distro running probalby the longest of any i had installed. it was great once nvidia had combined their drivers from the 2 into the one simple install. i was then able to run ATITD in linux, and it was MUCH faster than the windows version. i considered that quite an accomplishment for me to get that running since i had problems with X. I enjoyed red hat as a high end learning experience, being able to tweak little things here and there, but nothing major like getting into the kernel. i certainly wouldn't consider this distro if you are wanting to learn the internals of an OS. [edit]one thing i hate about redhat is it's red hat network update thing. i thought it was great at first, but i installed a newer version of mozilla than the updater said was available, and it still wanted me to download the damn old version. it has no way of determining what is installed, unless that red hat network updater does it for you. this pissed me off quite much. also, after reinstalling (as i did many times), i had to recreate a new account with the RHN. i couldn't get my old one to work for some reason.[/edit]
FreeBSD - I tried FreeBSD because I wanted to try a unix based OS instead of a linux distro. in my attempt to install it, i seriously f*cked something up. i could no longer boot into windows, even after i used the recovery console with the fixmbr. fixboot, and chkdsk commands. i have no idea what it did, but i had to reinstall windows. i gave up on freebsd after this since i did not want to have to reinstall windows every time i screwed up the installation of freebsd. please note, however, that i do not attribute this as the fault of freebsd, but rather my own. sure, it woudl've been nice if freebsd was able to protect me from screwing everything up so badly, but it was still my own fault, and i will probably try it again someday.
Peanut - I tried Peanut linux for two reasons - it was fairly small and not many people talk about it (i'm always the guy the roots for the underdog in almost any contest). I wanted to give it a try, so i did, and just like freebsd, i gave up during the installation. it claimed to be easy to install, and it was, except for the fact that there was some kind of issue (possibly graphics driver, or maybe X) that when i was testing X (and kde) during the install, the graphics were in what seemed to be 256 color, and 640x480, despite the fact that i had told it to be in 16 bit color and at least 800x600. another weird thing was that none of my windows in kde had the title menus (drag bar). i could not move or resize any window i opened, and a lot of times the window would take up more than just the screen, and i couldn't see the OK and Cancel buttons. i'm sure it was my fault somehow, but regardless, i gave up instead of searching for help because i wanted to try other distros anyway.
Arch Linux - This is where i currently reside. I have not completed the install yet, but i find this distro very intriguing. Arch is, as it's users and website will tell you, very customizable and it is what you make of it. it is a very young distro, but i like it so far. I'm going to use this as my big learning experience of linux. i attempted the install a few times, but that was only because I have yet to get the grub config file right. everything you do in this install is by editing the config files yourself (after the installer installs your selected packages). if you don't know what the files *should* look like, you're pretty much screwed. which, i didn't, but after reading the grub manual, i will be able to keep my install there, cuz i now know how to make it load windows, rather than the guessing i was doing beforehand. i can already see how this is going to force me to learn things by reading manuals and other documentation. BIG NOTE: the biggest downfall of this distro is it's lack of documentation, since it's not very well known and quite new (i think it started in 2002 iirc). I was about to try gentoo when i came across arch. i think the two are pretty much comparable (from what i've read). both are not geared toward newbs (which i still am, but i'm taking the plunge anyway), both have a package manager (portage vs pacman), and both are highly configurable. i chose arch over gentoo for two reasons: first because i don't have the time to sit and wait while gentoo compiles everything and two (knowing me, probably the biggest reason) was, like i mentioned earlier, i root for the underdogs
. what is nice though from what i've noticed, is that doing a base install (only required packages to get a system running), takes but 10 minutes, and afterwhich i can figure out how to do everything. right now my problem are grub (which, like i said i know how to fix now) and getting my realtek nic set up. once i have that, i'll be in great shape for starting my educational journey into the realm of low-level linux goodness.I still plan on trying more distros in the future. a list of what distros i want to try and why:
gentoo - strictly to see what all the hype is about. i think i'll get pretty much the same experience as i will with arch, but i will try it anyway just for the hell of it, and to do a comparison.
knoppix - just to have a cd-bootable OS in case i need it for whatever reason.
freebsd (again) - i want to learn the diffs between linux and unix, again, just for the hell of it.
openbsd - when i have my own house in many years, i will probably set up my own firewall/gateway. i like the security this os claims to have and if i can set it up correctly, i will love the security this os claims to have.
slackware (again) - i liked slack a lot. i'll give 'er another go sometime just to see what's in the new releases.
smoothwall - just to see how it works as a firewall.
sorcerer - i like the name
I highly doubt i'll get around to all of these distros any time soon, if at all, but as of now, these are the ones i'd like to at least try at some point.
one last note, if you are a newb to linux and just want to learn it, just like i am and do, i suggest not setting it up to be your main OS. i know it seems like common sense, but you know you're going to screw shit up, and when you do, you'll be glad you didn't write that 500 page dissertation on your linux box, now gone for good
well, i hope someone gets something useful out of this post
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
Speaking of 500 page dissertations
I'm glad to get your input from so many distros. I disagree with you slightly on the "if you only want to lear, then don't use Linux as your main OS" statement. I feel this is the ONLY way to learn. I dual booted Red Hat 8 as an experiment when I first got into Linux, but since I kept going back to Windows I was never forced to learn the Linux side of things.
Because I realized I wasnt learning anything, I decided to go 100% linux for my normal desktop use, and keep a Windows install for the one thing I couldnt get to run satisfactorily. Counter-Strike. (There should seriously be aonymous support groups for people trying to quit this game)
Anyway, I am curious what Windows apps you find you can't do without, that are keeping you from going 100% *nix. I have found that many apps actually have ports or workalike versions in *nix and most of those that don't actually were easier to do without than I originally thought.
I agree with you on Red Hat. Ease of setup is its only real redeeming quality. I find the package system an absolute nightmare, casue it focuses on ease of use and doesnt give you enough details on dependencies and whatnot. Because of my RedHat experience I have promised myself that I will never touch ANY distribution that uses the rpm system as its primary package manager.
Trying as hard as I can to not sound as a Gentoo zealot, I absolutely love this distribution, and I reccomend you give it a try. Yes it DOES take a bunch of time to setup the first time (if you chose to do it all from source, casue there are grp's in three different stages with pre-built binaries) but it wasnt a huge deal for me. I just started the compiling, and watched a movie, or went to bed. Most of it wasnt bad, but the X,Gnome,KDE,Mozilla, and Openoffice + all dependencies emerge I started took for bloody ever. After your initial setup though, compile times are not a huge issue. Just set your emerge to nice 19, and have it compile while you are doing whatever else you are doing.
In short, considering the sleekness of the portage system, and the fact that it hasnt been too dumbed down by gui configurators, as well as the excellent user forums gentoo has, I couldn't picture myself switching to any other distribution.
--matt
Originally posted by Zarathustra[H]
Speaking of 500 page dissertations
LOL. sorry about that. i had a lot to say
ok, maybe i should reword what i said, as it didn't come across correctly. I guess i should have said something more along the lines of, "If you're going to use linux as your main OS, be sure to keep EVERYTHING of the SLIGHTEST IMPORTANCE on a separate hard drive, preferably very easily accessible". that's what i do. i have all my important docs and installation files that were nearly impossible to find on my extra hard drive.
actually, i really don't think there are any to tell you the truth, well, besides games, and i'm sure there are a few here and there, but nothing off the top of my head anyway. i guess i just fell into the wrong mindset of being too relied on windows. thanks, i think i just realized it now
. anyway, if you could tell me a prog that i can check my hotmail account from (like i do w/outlook express) so i don't have to go to the website, it would be a big step for me moving to linux. oh yeah, one other thing holding me back. it's quite trivial, but i'm just very accustomed to it i guess. mozilla in linux will not close tabs when i middle click on them. for some reason, it tries to open web pages with the miscellaneous words i highlight on a page (obviously something with copy/paste as i know highlighting does that), but i just want it to close the damn tab, not give me errors that it cannot find the webpage "random words go here".yeah, all that compiling is really holding me back from gentoo. i like the documentation they have, but i think i'll stick w/arch for the time being.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
Originally posted by berky
actually, i really don't think there are any to tell you the truth, well, besides games, and i'm sure there are a few here and there, but nothing off the top of my head anyway. i guess i just fell into the wrong mindset of being too relied on windows. thanks, i think i just realized it now
Hmm I havnt had a hotmail account in almost 6 years. I had no idea Outlook did that. From looking at my email client (Evolution) it doesn't look lik eit can though. There might be one, but I have no idea.
Hmm Maybe thats a setting? I dont use Mozilla anymore so I can't check. I never even troied middle clicking on a window so I have no idea what it used to do in my Mozilla. I now use firebird, and I just tried middle clicking, and it brings up a scroll dot thingie in the emiddle of the screen. Not what you were looking for. Sorry...
Guess there wasnt anything there I could help you with, Maybe someone else can?
D
doh
Guest
I have used Redhat in the past, and loved it because it was easy to setup and the GRUB bootloader set its self up perfectly. I deleted that partition from my drive becuase I wanted to try a new distro, and went with slackware 9.1. It was a little more difficult for me to instsall, but after reading the documention online, i got through it, and am in hte process of tweaking the way i want it setup. Both are good.
you don't have to compile everything... you can add a switch to run out and get binary versions of everything with emerge...
also, if you have a few more computers sitting around, you can install distributed C compiling on them and get much faster build times (even as early as the primary gentoo installation)
D
doh
Guest
Gentoo = the reason I use GNU/Linux
I started off as almost a complete n00b, having only a little experience with some simple commands (mkdir, mv, cp, etc.) from a computer science class I took. Knoppix got me particularly interested, so I bought "Linux for Dummies" to check everything out. It came with Red Hat version 7 or 8, I can't remember now.
Red Hat was alright, easy to install and all, but it just wasn't what I was looking for, as I realized when I tried to install mplayer. There were several dependencies, and most of the dependencies had their own dependencies. I got tired of trying to sort through it all and remembered hearing about Portage from a friend.
So I gave Gentoo a shot. I got it installed perfectly the very first time. Sure, it wasn't as simple as RH, but it was reeeally well documented. The only hangups I ever had were configuring X, not to mention that I tried to install kde as my first desktop... from source. It took about 24 hours, IIRC.
PROS:
. Incredibly well-documented
. Amazing forum at http://forums.gentoo.org
. Portage > *
. Perfect for semi-n00bs and up
. Uber-configurable
CONS: (I'm being fair and balanced here)
. Compiling from source can take a while sometimes
. Setting up Xfree is kinda difficult, cause you don't have a browser you can look at, unless you have two computers (or, on second thought, you emerge a CLI browser... I'll have to look into that)
. If you ever mention Gentoo anywhere online (say, Slashdot), everyone will lash out at you because you're a "Gentoo zealot". Apparently, many non-Gentoo users are very touchy about this?
That's about it. I usually recommend that people who are absolutely new to Linux check out Knoppix until they are kinda comfortable with it, then install Gentoo.
I started off as almost a complete n00b, having only a little experience with some simple commands (mkdir, mv, cp, etc.) from a computer science class I took. Knoppix got me particularly interested, so I bought "Linux for Dummies" to check everything out. It came with Red Hat version 7 or 8, I can't remember now.
Red Hat was alright, easy to install and all, but it just wasn't what I was looking for, as I realized when I tried to install mplayer. There were several dependencies, and most of the dependencies had their own dependencies. I got tired of trying to sort through it all and remembered hearing about Portage from a friend.
So I gave Gentoo a shot. I got it installed perfectly the very first time. Sure, it wasn't as simple as RH, but it was reeeally well documented. The only hangups I ever had were configuring X, not to mention that I tried to install kde as my first desktop... from source. It took about 24 hours, IIRC.
PROS:
. Incredibly well-documented
. Amazing forum at http://forums.gentoo.org
. Portage > *
. Perfect for semi-n00bs and up
. Uber-configurable
CONS: (I'm being fair and balanced here
). Compiling from source can take a while sometimes
. Setting up Xfree is kinda difficult, cause you don't have a browser you can look at, unless you have two computers (or, on second thought, you emerge a CLI browser... I'll have to look into that)
. If you ever mention Gentoo anywhere online (say, Slashdot), everyone will lash out at you because you're a "Gentoo zealot". Apparently, many non-Gentoo users are very touchy about this?
That's about it. I usually recommend that people who are absolutely new to Linux check out Knoppix until they are kinda comfortable with it, then install Gentoo.
ShockValue
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2001
- Messages
- 1,641
I always catch shit from people in #Linuxhelp when I mention I use gentoo. "Go to the #gentoo chanel you damn gentoo-user.. Get a real distro...." stuff Like that.. I dunno why.
my guess is because there are a lot of people out there who are like 'gentoo rules all, if you use anything else you're a moron, blah blah blah"
i know not everyone is like that, but there are quite a few.
i have to try out gentoo sometime so i can post my own experiences on this stuff
btw, if anyone cares, i'm using arch at the moment. it rules all! if you use anything else you suck.
I just tried gentoo. I spend a whole night installing it and I thought everything was working fine. Once I made it to the Grub conf I musta messed it up and it started pissing me off, I reformated and through XP back on 15gb of my 40gb drive. I have 10gb for fat. Now the rest I am gonna try with an easier distro to install. How is fedora?
kleptophobiac
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 7,839
Slackware and Gentoo
They are the cleanest distributions out there, and the best for anybody looking to have complete control. Great for everything.
OpenBSD
Very secure, but really only good for routing/serving... but that's what I use it for.
They are the cleanest distributions out there, and the best for anybody looking to have complete control. Great for everything.
OpenBSD
Very secure, but really only good for routing/serving... but that's what I use it for.
D
doh
Guest
Use lilo. Dead simple to use.
(just remember to run lilo after updating the kernel images.
LuckyNumber
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 206
u just gotta be careful when you're writing the grub conf files
i personally prefer grub over lilo, but thats just me
i personally prefer grub over lilo, but thats just me
<-- installed slackware. I love it. i'm a newb don't know what the hell i've been doing . I've learned a lot from it, but havn't been driven away. I've used fedora and mandrake before. Slackware makes me feel like I have a lot more control over what i'm doing. Yeah, I just like it a lot more than anything else i've tried.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
Once you learn the commands, grub really isnt bad. It has a bunch of benefits over lilo, but a number if drawbacks as well.
well, I honestly don't know that much about either of them.. My friend was saying something about being able to put images into grub.. I kinda like that idea.. I like to be able to personalize things like that and make them look all nice. thats one of the things that I like about linux is the ability to do that to just about anything.
fedora needs to mature....bad.. in concept, it's the quintessential linux distro-- you have community support for an almost totally opensource project- but there's almost nonexistent driver support right now, most of the drivers for my server (a p3) are absolute crap. it just needs time, and more users to kick out better drivers and support is all.
I love redhat, debian and gentoo the most.. my buddy uses freebsd at work, and i tried it and liked it as well. as for ease of install, redhat is the best, but it bloats the machine up with a lot of useless crap. im downloading 2.6.2-prerelease kernel now
I love redhat, debian and gentoo the most.. my buddy uses freebsd at work, and i tried it and liked it as well. as for ease of install, redhat is the best, but it bloats the machine up with a lot of useless crap. im downloading 2.6.2-prerelease kernel now
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
Yeah Putting a background image in Grub is easy, just use the following command in grub.conf
splashimage=(hd1,0)/grub/splash.xpm.gz
or wherever yours is located.
Just compress a 640x480 xpm image and refer to it with that command, and viola, you have a Grub splash image.
--matt
:wq
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
Maybe I am speaking to soon, cause I have never tried it, but why would driver support be a problem?
Most drivers you need are in the kernel which does not depends on the distro.
Other drivers, like the nvidia kernel module, you have to download and compile yourself anyway...
another thing to note, if this is your first time, don't install linux on your main machine... find a peice of junk to install it to, because it will not work your first time, you'll be pissed and not have a system to fall back on. Once you figure out how to use it and not destroy the computer, step up to dual booting - you can use your fast main machine and see what everything is like... and eventually, if it's for you, then make the switch and destroy everything that is MS
this takes time though, i spent 3 yrs using it occasionally as a server on a slower pc then eventually dual booting (gaming support back then wasn't that great (winex wasn't so mainstream) so i still used the windows os for games) and then eventually i got rid of windows completely (about the time xp came out). No, not cuz xp sucks, on the contrary it's in my opinion that xp is the best OS MS has put out yet, but i didn't like how agressive they made it with activation codes, etc. So i ditched it and never looked back
this takes time though, i spent 3 yrs using it occasionally as a server on a slower pc then eventually dual booting (gaming support back then wasn't that great (winex wasn't so mainstream) so i still used the windows os for games) and then eventually i got rid of windows completely (about the time xp came out). No, not cuz xp sucks, on the contrary it's in my opinion that xp is the best OS MS has put out yet, but i didn't like how agressive they made it with activation codes, etc. So i ditched it and never looked back
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
Originally posted by 86reddawg
another thing to note, if this is your first time, don't install linux on your main machine... find a peice of junk to install it to, because it will not work your first time, you'll be pissed and not have a system to fall back on. Once you figure out how to use it and not destroy the computer, step up to dual booting - you can use your fast main machine and see what everything is like... and eventually, if it's for you, then make the switch and destroy everything that is MS
this takes time though, i spent 3 yrs using it occasionally as a server on a slower pc then eventually dual booting (gaming support back then wasn't that great (winex wasn't so mainstream) so i still used the windows os for games) and then eventually i got rid of windows completely (about the time xp came out). No, not cuz xp sucks, on the contrary it's in my opinion that xp is the best OS MS has put out yet, but i didn't like how agressive they made it with activation codes, etc. So i ditched it and never looked back
Hah My switch went like this:
1. Horrible Windows XP crash
2. Hours of cursing
3. Installed 100% Red Hat
4. Realized I missed Counter-Strike too much so I created a dual boot just for CS.
5. Got fed up with Red Hat, and found Gentoo
Well I have only tried freeBSD and i am totaly new to linux my friend told me to install it on one of my servers so i did. Install was very easy but after that I would find myself staring at the command line for long periods of time and trying to figure out what the manuel was trying to tell me. I did figure out how to spoof mail, setup an ftp, and look around all the directories then i was bored with it because i had no idea what the heck i was doing. I guess im addicted to point and click.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
Originally posted by 86reddawg
hehe, i remember spending 2 weeks getting half life to finally work in linux under wine, and being really damn proud of myself - that was alot of effort... nowadays, just use winex to install halflife, and it works with no tweaking required....
I have tried doing that in Wine with GL support, but I find that Counterstrike sortof feels inexplicably <i>off</i> under Linux compared to Windows. I have never tried Winex though...
FreeBSD.
Comparing it to the heavier linux distros [1], it feels faster, it's more predictable, and not in the least, it doesn't try to do everything for me. Had I wanted that, I'd have gotten windows XP. However, everything you need to do is easy and very well documented.
Personally, I also think it's easier to work with than most linuxes.
Building a kernel? Comment away the lines you don't need in the generic kernel-config-file, make buildkernel installkernel. [2]
Make sound work (if you didn't build it into the kernel)? kldload snd_driver .
You have to know these things, and there isn't any curses- or X- system to do it for you.
However, as CLI-based systems go, it's a nice one.
Also, a big difference from linux, the whole base system, kernel included, is one system. If you have FreeBSD 5.1, then that includes the base system (buildchain, basic tools) and the kernel. Makes upgrades predictable, as the parts are made for each other.
Others have already mentioned the ports system. I haven't worked too much with gentoos portage, but it's much of the same. You want to install portupgrade, though. [3]
I'm also fond of the slices/partitions-system. In short, every slice (what's usually called a partition) can contain many bsd-partitions. Much like logical partitions.
The last part is the linux layer: You can run almost all apps made for linux, with no speed penalty. (Personally, I use an opera-for-linux binary now and then.)
One of the more common ideas is that it's got worse hardware support that your average linux. It's not completely wrong, 3d-acceleration for some cards is lacking, and some more excotic hardware might not work either. Outside that I've never had any problems, and it's usually a breeze to set up. The mouse daemon (that maps whatever mouse you have to /dev/sysmouse, and works in the console) is just frosting.
It's also stable as little else I've ever tried, more so than any prepacked linux distro I've used.
[1] "Heavy" here refers to how much it installs and sets up for you.
[2] To be exact, make a copy of the GENERIC-file, edit that, and add KERNCONF=(what you called the copy) on the end of that line.
[3] A very nice tool for working with ports. It's not in the base system because it's written in ruby, and adding another language to it for one non-critical tool isn't likely to happen.
Comparing it to the heavier linux distros [1], it feels faster, it's more predictable, and not in the least, it doesn't try to do everything for me. Had I wanted that, I'd have gotten windows XP. However, everything you need to do is easy and very well documented.
Personally, I also think it's easier to work with than most linuxes.
Building a kernel? Comment away the lines you don't need in the generic kernel-config-file, make buildkernel installkernel. [2]
Make sound work (if you didn't build it into the kernel)? kldload snd_driver .
You have to know these things, and there isn't any curses- or X- system to do it for you.
However, as CLI-based systems go, it's a nice one.
Also, a big difference from linux, the whole base system, kernel included, is one system. If you have FreeBSD 5.1, then that includes the base system (buildchain, basic tools) and the kernel. Makes upgrades predictable, as the parts are made for each other.
Others have already mentioned the ports system. I haven't worked too much with gentoos portage, but it's much of the same. You want to install portupgrade, though. [3]
I'm also fond of the slices/partitions-system. In short, every slice (what's usually called a partition) can contain many bsd-partitions. Much like logical partitions.
The last part is the linux layer: You can run almost all apps made for linux, with no speed penalty. (Personally, I use an opera-for-linux binary now and then.)
One of the more common ideas is that it's got worse hardware support that your average linux. It's not completely wrong, 3d-acceleration for some cards is lacking, and some more excotic hardware might not work either. Outside that I've never had any problems, and it's usually a breeze to set up. The mouse daemon (that maps whatever mouse you have to /dev/sysmouse, and works in the console) is just frosting.
It's also stable as little else I've ever tried, more so than any prepacked linux distro I've used.
[1] "Heavy" here refers to how much it installs and sets up for you.
[2] To be exact, make a copy of the GENERIC-file, edit that, and add KERNCONF=(what you called the copy) on the end of that line.
[3] A very nice tool for working with ports. It's not in the base system because it's written in ruby, and adding another language to it for one non-critical tool isn't likely to happen.
fedora core 1 with 2.6 kernel.
fedora core 2 beta is out, as soon as it's the full version, i'm going to get it.
i love fedora, i've seen a lot of people unhappy with it here as i quickly read....did you use synaptic to update everything? It's great IMO.
fedora core 2 beta is out, as soon as it's the full version, i'm going to get it.
i love fedora, i've seen a lot of people unhappy with it here as i quickly read....did you use synaptic to update everything? It's great IMO.
I am a n00b with linux but have tried a view versions of Mandrake. I was unhappy with it since I couldn't get all my drivers loaded. I will give this Gentoo a try, I see that 2004.0 version just came out, hopefully I will have better success with it then I did with Mandrake. Thanks, Shramj
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
I disagree...
I find that by using Redhat/Mandrake/Suse, etc. you learn almost nothing about how the OS works.
I started out with Redhat, used it for a few months and found that I knew nothing about Linux. Then I switched to Gentoo, and even thought it was pretty tricky at first it was well documented, and I becasue of that I lerned a lot, very fast.
As far as learning about Linux goes, I found my Red Hat experience a complete and total waste of time.
Fluxstream
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2004
- Messages
- 31
My friend was trying out Gentoo and he mentioned you need to have a decent connection to download the necessary component. I wonder if 56k is do-able (yeah I'm a 56ker laugh all you want).
Anyway, I took a linux class but forget everything by now. My knowledge about linux is:
Prompt > press any key
Me > Uhmmmm.... where is the any key?
That is the best analogy I could come up with.
Anyway, I took a linux class but forget everything by now. My knowledge about linux is:
Prompt > press any key
Me > Uhmmmm.... where is the any key?
That is the best analogy I could come up with.
NewBlackDak
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2003
- Messages
- 1,322
Depending on what processor you have, there might be a stage3 with compiled for your proc that setup pretty well. You could get someone to DL/burn the stage disks, and install that way. What do you have BTW?
Fluxstream
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2004
- Messages
- 31
I have an M6805.
However I'm planning to build a minimal desktop to try out Linux OS.
However I'm planning to build a minimal desktop to try out Linux OS.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,868
Is that in a Mac, orn in an Amiga? or some other computer based on the motorola 68*** cpu I am not familliar with?
IceDigger
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2001
- Messages
- 12,089
It's the new emachines amd 64 laptop.
Get with the times
Get with the times