requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
5 Best Linux Distros to Convert Windows Users
- Thread starter requiemnoise
- Start date
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
How odd. If you tried, Linux from scratch than you understand how Linux kernel works, so why are you having issues?
In keeping with the theme of '5', here's 5 reasons.
1.) It doesn't have some of the software I use, nor an Open Source alternative, and the programs don't work well in WINE.
2.) I can't seem to find an enjoyable Desktop Environment. They're all either ugly, cumbersome or too bare-bones for what I need.
3.) Linux just seems like a waste of effort for me. Why should I go through the trouble of getting Linux set up and working when in less than an hour I can have a working Windows Vista based PC that just as well meets my needs in less than an hour?
4.) I'm not the only one who uses my PC. Enough other people use my computer, and I don't think it'd be wise to switch to Linux, forcing them to re-learn how to use a computer all over again and me to teach them how to use it. Everybody who uses my computer has been using Windows for a good 10 years, and have never touched a GNU machine of any kind. Throwing Linux their laps would simply equate to added headache for both parties.
5.) Linux has little/nothing to offer me over Windows to justify the transition.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
Then don't. It isn't for everyone. It seems like you never really bothered to look deeply. I never had those problems that you had. That includes few school kids that I installed Linux.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
what a stupid article....
*huge linux supporter...*
*huge linux supporter...*
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
I think that article was designed for Windows users. I think so many people have issues getting their feet wet.
So, all the distros I've tried, all of the time I spent on Linux For Scratch, all of the times I've tried getting my programs to work in WINE, all the time spent trying Solaris and FreeBSD, none of that was looking deeply? It seems almost conflicting to say that Linux isn't for everyone, then turn around and suggest that I just didn't look hard enough, and that it would have been viable if I had looked harder.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
yea thats why i think its such a stupid article... the choices just suck... really, they suck...
being someone that runs a mix of linux and BSD on every computer i own, i dont think your average windows user would *want* to switch to the linux world, its just not ready yet (oh... i guarantee you it *will* be ready... and soon, just not now...)
there are two computer users in my family that i HAVE switched to linux though: my grandparents. They use a computer to email family, listen to streaming music online, and share/collect family pictures... and so i gave them the most trouble free OS i could think of (that isnt Mac OS
), and gave them a Ubuntu 8.04 LTS desktop install....but yea... thats only because they use that thing for only the most basic of tasks....
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
give it time, the linux/bsd world will improve quickly and steadily for desktop usage.... it wasn't until very recently that *so many* people started using it on the desktop... and i suspect that there will be many more desktop experience focused developers signing on in due time .....
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
I don't know. Maybe, you were looking for something else. Kids I visit near here had no issues. They don't mind OpenOffice and they prefer Firefox. Our government seems to happy running Redhat and Suse Enterprise without any issue. Linux install is larger than you assume. People use it everyday. Also, why do I get complains from various forums from people who hate Linux after Linux from scratch. I wonder.
You can't even begin to compared a Solaris or FreeBSD system to that of linux as they are so very different its not even comparable; apples to bananas if you will.
WINE has never been a guaranteed way for apps designed in Windows to work flawlessly its just there so that perhaps you can try and see if it WILL work.
If you really need to use Windows apps and want to run linux then install a virtual machine running XP.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
AbJ32 said:
By the way, why do you think Linux desktop is ugly? If you aren't customizing your Desktop environment, yes it can look damn ugly. Brown theme in Ubuntu is ugly and light blue theme for Fedora is tasteless.
Have you visit following sites for better themes?
GNOME
http://www.gnome-look.org/
kde
http://www.kde-look.org/
*box
http://www.box-look.org/
Michaelius
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,684
I've tried Open Suse 11- suse installed ok but it's program repositories were tragic and i have better things to do then compilation of programs i want to use and after wasting 2 hours trying to find codecs to play .mkv video files i decided enough.
So i have choosen ubuntu 8.04 (i had some positive experiences with gutsy gibon 7.xx version) but the authors made it's instalation so easy that first time i tried it it chopped 90 gigs out of my "games" particion (my mistake it was same size as my old pata hdd where i wanted it to install) and when i installed it properly it damaged my vista bootloader beyond repair.
I'd love to use it a bit but there's no way I'm gonna risk losing another x hours on reinstalling my Vista together with all necessary programs.
So for me linux at the moment stays only a live cd system to watcg risky websites.
So i have choosen ubuntu 8.04 (i had some positive experiences with gutsy gibon 7.xx version) but the authors made it's instalation so easy that first time i tried it it chopped 90 gigs out of my "games" particion (my mistake it was same size as my old pata hdd where i wanted it to install) and when i installed it properly it damaged my vista bootloader beyond repair.
I'd love to use it a bit but there's no way I'm gonna risk losing another x hours on reinstalling my Vista together with all necessary programs.
So for me linux at the moment stays only a live cd system to watcg risky websites.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
im not too experienced with solaris, but wtf..... FreeBSD is *very* comparable to linux, and 95+% of what you learn under BSD is directly transferable to life in Linux
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
I am going to make an assumption he meant by the installer. Installation gets tricky if a person hasn't read the officially FreeBSD manual.
I've heard FreeBSD is so similar to Linux that you can sometimes run Linux binaries on FreeBSD without any modification. I've never actually tried to do so, though.
I'll also add that I never said they were the same. I just added them because I have tried them, and a lot of the software available on Solaris and FreeBSD is available on Linux and vice versa.
I also don't see how they're so different, unless you're looking at them on a very low level. The biggest difference is how the kernel functions. Beyond that, they both use the same desktop enviornments, and have some very similar/the same terminal commands. Installing drivers and software on them is also very similar. Also, all three operating systems are Unix derivatives. So, what exactly is so different about them that makes them apples and bananas?
I never said it was, so what's your point?
Oh yes, let's run instrument processing software that requires extremely low audio I/O latencies in order to be usable inside of a virtual machine and see how well that goes over. Now, I'd be running Windows XP (which I dislike in comparison to it's superior successor) with ASIO interfacing a 'virtual' sound card, which then goes through Linux's sound interface to my physical sound card.
I tried tweaking the colors and couldn't put together anything I really liked. I haven't tried any of the themes on those sites yet, though. I dunno, maybe I'll run across something I like next time I decide to put Linux on one of my older boxes.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
I got few WDM dependent audio applications under wine working. AISO isn't necessary faster or more stable than WDM. Also AISO is product of Steinberg. The standard is controlled by their developer tool.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
just keep an open mind... i dont blame you for running back to windows..... as it is the smart thing to do right now if you arent willing to accept the various warts that come with the current open source operating systems....
but yea... keep an open mind, and check back in with linux every so often... it is getting fantastically better....
but yea... keep an open mind, and check back in with linux every so often... it is getting fantastically better....
I'll install a different Linux distro on one of my older PCs every couple of months or so and play around with it for a bit. It's not like I've given up on Linux completely or anything, I just don't see any reason to switch over to Linux for my daily computing.
longblock454
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,743
You can install just about any modern linux distro in < 20 minutes and have everything from Office, email, flash, mp3, flash, movies, java etc. And it didn't cost you a cent! Not to mention you don't need antivirus, spyware or etc.....
Michaelius
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,684
You can get same things from Windows and only paid aplication in that will be OS.
longblock454
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,743
That is still $100, plus antivirus that actually works.
The only thing m$ makes that is > crap is Visual Studio, which is actually quite good.
Okay, but you're going to want Display drivers if you're me, and those alone take a long time on Linux. On Windows, it's a lot quicker and a LOT less of a hassle. I doubt you included those in your '20 minutes'.
And I don't use Anti-Virus or Anti-Spyware software anyways; I don't get viruses.
I don't like Open Office's user interface at all, and I've heard Microsoft Office doesn't work too well in WINE. I can use Open Office, but it's definitely a con if I can't use Microsoft Office.
I already own Windows Vista though, so using Linux isn't going to save me any money.
longblock454
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,743
In Fedora Nvidia drivers are install with one command, "yum install akmod-nvidia"! Well, once the rpmfusion repo is installed, but that is one command also!
Installation time is a minute maybe, but my systems are fairly quick.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
I think he meant, Linux can install with the latest patches, updates, all the necessary application while installing. With Windows, you already need a Windows machine that has Nlite and NET 2.0 or higher, 7zip, cab builder, good editors, download all the patches, the latest SP, ruin the existing machine by installing to the drive, capturing the registry keys,document where it go installed and convert that to a cab, so you can streamline those cabs into the ISO. You can spend few days just making an ISO. Most people are better off installing from scratch and install everything separate.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
Most popular Linux distro, it is just less than 20 characters to type. In Ubuntu, it is all graphical and plug and play for graphic drivers. Ubuntu comes with a proprietary driver manager.
You are seriously playing with a fire. Even security admins who forced to use Windows will never use Windows without the protection.
2003 is gold standard. 2007, you should wait until 1.2 release.
Once you learn Linux, it is always free for life.
Well for starters, I don't like Fedora's package manager, so if I were going to use a Linux distro, I'd probably be Gentoo, or OpenSuSE, or even Ubuntu. I've never been able to get display drivers working properly in Linux without just going to Nvidia's site, downloading the .run and compiling the drivers as a kernel module. That takes time as well as effort.
....which has never worked for me, ever.
Windows Vista is pretty damn secure, and after 6 months of use, even with not-so-savy users in this household using my PC as well, I am yet to encounter a single malware infection. I download AVG every once in a while and check, too. I feel there is no need for me to use anti-malware protection, since I don't get malware.
....which is only beneficial to you if the software you use works on Linux.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
I don't know why you had to do that. In Ubuntu since 6.10, when you boot with a machine Nvidia machine, little icon on the taskbar blinks, double click, and it says, hey, do you want to install a vendor driver? and you click yes.
longblock454
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,743
This is a good point. Linux is growing exponentially, if it has been over a year since you last tested it please give it another go!
longblock454
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,743
Yes, three of my home machines are Nvidia and plenty at work, never an issue.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
Hmm.. I test around 8 to 10 distros yearly. I'm a very active Linux users. Did you meant AbJ32? If it is, my mistake.
longblock454
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,743
Yeah, meant for AbJ32, my bad
Last time I tried Linux was Arch and Gentoo in November or October on my older rig, Smoothwall linux on the PC I turned into a router a few months prior to that, and Ubuntu on my main PC in July, the week before I bought Vista.
longblock454
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,743
To each their own! Next time your bored give Fedora or Ubuntu a try, might just surprise you!
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
If you are trying to learn Linux, why are you bothering with Arch and Gentoo? Gentoo is no longer very active. Arch is for users who want TOTAL control over their OS. They don't want any distros to tell them what directions to go. That means if you aren't fluent with Linux, you will get nowhere with it. Like I said before, Linux is a baby step OS. There is a reason there are so many different Linux distros. Many Linux distros have different mission statements. I use Ubuntu, because I have to practice what users are having problems. If I wasn't in the technology business, I probably use something else.
Who says I'm trying to learn it?
longblock454
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,743
If not you really picked the wrong distros to test.