Tekforums

Am interested in Linux ... do you need an OS and then an additional GUI.  I sort of remember seeing it years ago where I had RedHat 6.something installed and then had KDE/Gnome (are they two different GUIs) installed.  I have been pointed in the direction of Ubuntu ... is this what the majority go for.  Whats the difference between Unix and Lunix?

Sorry, this is probably a total spaz question(s) (not used that word in years! he he!!!)  But hey, youve gotta start somewhere.  

Am not expecting a reply until wednesday given the bbc weather site is showing the sun icon for every day of a 5 day forecast ... yippee!!

Cheers guys!

just download ubuntu and install. Everything you need is installed automatically. Just like windows.

Id even go so far as to say try PCLinuxOS, (http://www.pclinuxos.com/news.php) I dont like it as much as Ubuntu for my desktop, but its really to rock out of the box. Suse, Fedora (red hat), and a few more are good, but PCLOS and Ubuntu have the best forums on the web.

Both PCLOS and Ubuntu are live CDs so you can check your hardware before you install.

Superb ... that was my ideal scenario answer.

Any pointers for recommend apps ... something like Photoshop would be ace.   Any other cool apps would also be useful.

Cheers

How would I go about setting up a dual-boot machine?  I mean in terms of partitioning?  Do I wipe my current XP Pro setup.  Its 40GB so was thinking of creating a 20GB partition for XP Pro and then leaving 20GB unallocated for Ubuntu?  How would the startup work in terms of switching around?

Quote from: mrtHow would I go about setting up a dual-boot machine?  I mean in terms of partitioning?  Do I wipe my current XP Pro setup.  Its 40GB so was thinking of creating a 20GB partition for XP Pro and then leaving 20GB unallocated for Ubuntu?  How would the startup work in terms of switching around?

Some of the better distros will set up Grub(a bootloader) for you.  I know that SuSe will from the web install, and Ubuntu will from the live CD IIRC.

Whatever you pick out make sure you are patient.  It takes a few weeks to get up to speed in any way like youll be with windows.  

Quote from: mrtHow would I go about setting up a dual-boot machine?  I mean in terms of partitioning?  Do I wipe my current XP Pro setup.  Its 40GB so was thinking of creating a 20GB partition for XP Pro and then leaving 20GB unallocated for Ubuntu?  How would the startup work in terms of switching around?

Defrag XP, back up important files, then do your Linux install. Pay attention and youll be fine. During the partitioning stage you can shrink your NTFS partition.

Quote from: maximusotter

Quote from: mrtHow would I go about setting up a dual-boot machine?  I mean in terms of partitioning?  Do I wipe my current XP Pro setup.  Its 40GB so was thinking of creating a 20GB partition for XP Pro and then leaving 20GB unallocated for Ubuntu?  How would the startup work in terms of switching around?

Defrag XP, back up important files, then do your Linux install. Pay attention and youll be fine. During the partitioning stage you can shrink your NTFS partition.

Cheers fella!!  Will give that a try.

Sorry to hijhack, but can anyone tell me how Id go about removing a linux installation and getting rid of grub so that it boots me into windows by default instead of Ubuntu?  Ubuntu doesnt support my Wifi usb adapter so I cant use it at home or uni.  Next term Ill have LAN so I could give it a go, but I figure its better to start afresh with the latest distro.

Quote from: funkychicken9000Sorry to hijhack, but can anyone tell me how Id go about removing a linux installation and getting rid of grub so that it boots me into windows by default instead of Ubuntu?  Ubuntu doesnt support my Wifi usb adapter so I cant use it at home or uni.  Next term Ill have LAN so I could give it a go, but I figure its better to start afresh with the latest distro.

use the windows disk

boot into the recovery console then:

fixmbr

fixboot

Then reboot the machine

mrt, let me catch you right there and ask that you try FreeBSD instead of linux !

www.freebsd.org

^^ :roll:^^

Why dont you start a BSD thread instead of spamming every single linux thread with it? If you think its so dang good, then make an argument why, in its own special thread. Ive not heard a convincing argument for it yet. Not saying that its a bad OS, just has no palpable benefits for most desktop users.

Quote from: BXGTi16Vmrt, let me catch you right there and ask that you try FreeBSD instead of linux !

www.freebsd.org

If hes a noob why go for BSD? is there a distro which is as friendly to new comers as SuSE or Ubuntu? if not, its pointless...

Its sort of like a former Swede friend of my moms who is now naturalized and a huge Bush supporter--when asked for advice on what new car to buy, he said that the only real safe choice is a Toyota 4Runner. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_4Runner) Just because he wanted one. :lol: Right, real practical choice for a city dweller. :P And not all that safe either, compared to a proper passenger car with side air curtains. The perception of safety isnt going to help in a crash. :P

Quote from: maximusotter^^ :roll:^^

Why dont you start a BSD thread instead of spamming every single linux thread with it? If you think its so dang good, then make an argument why, in its own special thread. Ive not heard a convincing argument for it yet. Not saying that its a bad OS, just has no palpable benefits for most desktop users.

no it doesnt have any great advantages over Linux on the desktop, but for laptop and wireless users it beats the hell out of Linux.  Im typing this from my linux box, and the laptop sat next to me is getting FreeBSD on it because the wireless support is flawless, and the ATi support is much much better.

Id use it on something like a lappie for sure, Im just not a fanboi of one size solutions. ;)

Is there a gui front end for ports these days?

Quote from: BXGTi16Vmrt, let me catch you right there and ask that you try Free-BSD instead of Linux!

Quote from: maximusotterIts sort of like a former Swede friend of my moms who is now naturalized and a huge Bush supporter--when asked for advice on what new car to buy, he said that the only real safe choice is a Toyota 4Runner. Just because he wanted one. :lol: Right, real practical choice for a city dweller. :P And not all that safe either, compared to a proper passenger car with side air curtains. The perception of safety isnt going to help in a crash. :P

Agreeing with max here: If youre going to do that every time a Linux thread like this comes up, at least suggest something easy to use and fairly noobie friendly, like PC-BSD or Freesbie. :P

FreeBSD is easy to use - it installs right first time (Unlike 90% of linux distros that require hours of tweaking to get a decent res or some sound out of your speakers) FreeBSD is primarily the desktop version of BSD.

Better hardware support out of the box, more secure, and you can easily roll back updates..

This is the first major point - the second being it will also run nearly all linux software as well, so you have best of both worlds.

Quote from: BXGTi16VFreeBSD is easy to use - it installs right first time (Unlike 90% of linux distros that require hours of tweaking to get a decent res or some sound out of your speakers) FreeBSD is primarily the desktop version of BSD.

Better hardware support out of the box, more secure, and you can easily roll back updates..

This is the first major point - the second being it will also run nearly all linux software as well, so you have best of both worlds.

I dont mean to piss on your parade here but id like to address a few issues.

Firstly, out of the box linux distros will now nativly support wiress cards using the NdisWrapper. Unbuntu, Fedora etc.. will have no problem in setting it up without any user interaction.

Secondly, again with out of the box linux X setup is as easy as clicking go and letting it configure everything, basically for the common user your argurments are invalid.

Im typing this on my pc, while my wireless ubuntu laptop sits next to me playing a dvd with perfect audio in full resolution.

Now if you want to get pissy and say things like "ooh gentoo and debian require you f**k about in the config files" then feel free, but remember, there are many MANY linux vairents all intened for different demographics.
Gentoo et al are for the more technically minded who want to step through every part of the install them selves, right down to compiling every piece of software and loading every driver module into the kernel (which you configure manually too) yourself. Where as Ubuntu et al are designed for users who want to just install it and go infact, id say that it was alot harder to install windows than it is to install ubuntu.

now FreeBSD is a good OS, as is linux. But i cant help but get the feeling that youre making linux out to be harder than it really is because you had a few bad experiances yourself and went over to BSD.

Like maximusotter said, if you want to sing the praises of BSD then make your own thread about it.

/rant

Quote from: BXGTi16VFreeBSD is easy to use - it installs right first time (Unlike 90% of linux distros that require hours of tweaking to get a decent res or some sound out of your speakers)

Blantant lie.

Quote from: BXGTi16VFreeBSD is primarily the desktop version of BSD.

Better hardware support out of the box,

Nope. Different hardware support. Lie.

Quote from: BXGTi16Vmore secure,

Linux is plenty secure for a Desktop user.

Quote from: BXGTi16Vand you can easily roll back updates..

I have never, ever, even thought about or needed to roll back updates. Perhaps BSD updates tend to break things?

Quote from: BXGTi16VThis is the first major point - the second being it will also run nearly all linux software as well, so you have best of both worlds.

You have again failed to prove anything. They are two different OSs. Big deal. Get some help with your obsession. ;):P

Ubuntu, Suse, and the other big boys are good for noobs because of widespread usage, help forums, and other kinds of support. Those things are far more important than the kernel.

Use an OS, dont let con it into letting you worship it and give it blowjobs. :D

Surely a lie is when I knowingly tell something that isnt true?

I know what I see, and I know that BSD installs more easily on difficult hardware such as laptops. Linux falls over and has a hissy fit. BSD also has much better USB support.

I also know that a lot of linux installers are a PITA designed for nerds, by nerds. The FreeBSD installer looks daunting, but in actuality all you have to do (For the simplest install) is about 6 keystrokes and a few disc swaps.

Update rollback is absolutley essential. If you use a large number of apps or are always keen to test new stuff then you appreciate being able to roll back to a state where a certain version of a certain app will work - linux is a total PITA for this. In a corporate environment (Especially as a server - and I know this from bitter experience) it is absolutely *essential* that you can roll back updates in case something goes wrong.

The last experience I had with the flavour of the month distribution of linux (Seems to change once a week) was with Ubuntu - put the install disc in a laptop, it hung on startup - great beginnings there.

Theyre not quite different either.BSD dictates UNIX, of which linux is a lookalike. So its more like a cousin, except on BSD, you can run the Linux software too.

Although Linux is probably more immediately accessible, as there seems to be more of the internet devoted to it!

Quote from: maximusotterIs there a gui front end for ports these days?

FreeBSD is great for those that want to learn computers; and PC-BSD and DesktopBSD is great for those that just want to use it.

Quote from: BXGTi16VThe FreeBSD installer looks daunting, but in actuality all you have to do (For the simplest install) is about 6 keystrokes and a few disc swaps.

Yes, FreeBSD - once you understand what a slice is - is the fastest and easiest install I know.

Having said that, I still prefer a pure debian on the desktop - FreeBSD is my choice for servers where linux starts to suck.

Quote from: BXGTi16VSurely a lie is when I knowingly tell something that isnt true?

I know what I see, and I know that BSD installs more easily on difficult hardware such as laptops. Linux falls over and has a hissy fit. BSD also has much better USB support.

I also know that a lot of linux installers are a PITA designed for nerds, by nerds. The FreeBSD installer looks daunting, but in actuality all you have to do (For the simplest install) is about 6 keystrokes and a few disc swaps.

Update rollback is absolutley essential. If you use a large number of apps or are always keen to test new stuff then you appreciate being able to roll back to a state where a certain version of a certain app will work - linux is a total PITA for this. In a corporate environment (Especially as a server - and I know this from bitter experience) it is absolutely *essential* that you can roll back updates in case something goes wrong.

The last experience I had with the flavour of the month distribution of linux (Seems to change once a week) was with Ubuntu - put the install disc in a laptop, it hung on startup - great beginnings there.

Theyre not quite different either.BSD dictates UNIX, of which linux is a lookalike. So its more like a cousin, except on BSD, you can run the Linux software too.

i read about half of the first paragraph and dismissed the whole thing because you clearly dont know wtf youre on about.


Please come back when you have actually researched a little

PAH!

Youre all gay - gayer than my gay uncle johnny (who is THE biggest queen in Gtr Manchester).... because youre arguing whats better... Linux or BSD and we all know the real answer is........ Mac OS X!  :nana:


 :lol:


Anyways, BX - to be honest, the arguments give FOR Linux are spot on, i dont use it anymore, but when i did (when Ubuntu was first released and in the dayz of Fedora Core 2) - it was sensationally easy to setup, use and it was reliable too.... horses for courses though, i suppose.

i vote ubuntu.

im a noob with no experience of linux. i got on with it great. great support in the forums when you break something. it looks good, feels great, an if you break it you can usually fix it without having to run through 32191404859549843298432 lines of command line code.


just my 2p

Quote from: Chaostime

Quote from: BXGTi16VSurely a lie is when I knowingly tell something that isnt true?

I know what I see, and I know that BSD installs more easily on difficult hardware such as laptops. Linux falls over and has a hissy fit. BSD also has much better USB support.

I also know that a lot of linux installers are a PITA designed for nerds, by nerds. The FreeBSD installer looks daunting, but in actuality all you have to do (For the simplest install) is about 6 keystrokes and a few disc swaps.

Update rollback is absolutley essential. If you use a large number of apps or are always keen to test new stuff then you appreciate being able to roll back to a state where a certain version of a certain app will work - linux is a total PITA for this. In a corporate environment (Especially as a server - and I know this from bitter experience) it is absolutely *essential* that you can roll back updates in case something goes wrong.

The last experience I had with the flavour of the month distribution of linux (Seems to change once a week) was with Ubuntu - put the install disc in a laptop, it hung on startup - great beginnings there.

Theyre not quite different either.BSD dictates UNIX, of which linux is a lookalike. So its more like a cousin, except on BSD, you can run the Linux software too.

i read about half of the first paragraph and dismissed the whole thing because you clearly dont know wtf youre on about.


Please come back when you have actually researched a little

Sure, I only have 23 years experience of computing, 7 of those in the profession, and being an IT manager and formerly a datacomms engineer working mainly in Solaris/UNIX03 and AS/400 i clearly know nothing about UNIX/UNIX a like OSs !

dont get me wrong - i think linux is great, its a great idea - but BSD is easier to install, thats all im saying.

Quote from: BXGTi16Vdont get me wrong - i think linux is great, its a great idea - but BSD is easier to install, thats all im saying.

Installing it is usually 2% of the problems. A lot of linux distros (free) now are so noob friendly. Suse, Mandriva, Ubuntu (ish) and PClinux OS (probably the best for noobs). All of them are getting there though. The amount of people using linux compared to when i first started (1999) is amazing.

I can actually see where BX is coming from here.  Over the years ive used a range of distros starting out with Debian when you _had_ to know the command line.  In that time ive gone through Madrake(Mandriva), Lindows(Linspire), Red Hat, White Box, Centos, Suse (that im using again) and Ubuntu.  For quite along time if wireless was in the equation i would be loading FreeBSD without a thought.  Its got a few features that Linux lacked.  Personally these days i still lean towards BSD for anything with wireless because when you compare the reliability of the drivers BSD takes the cake.  Similar for a file server, BSD is slicker and it is pretty much a fire and forget solution.  Linux is great once youve tweaked it, but BSD out of the box just works.  Ive used both and found for some things BSD just wins.  When you remember its a "Proper" Unix as well you have ot take acoc**t of the various apps that Linux just cant run in a commercial environment.  

Good point - the uptake has been amazing - Ill be very interested to see how Vista shakes things up, if at all

Quote from: BXGTi16VGood point - the uptake has been amazing - Ill be very interested to see how Vista shakes things up, if at all

it wont, if that THING they call a Beta is actually the RC as has been suggested then i see Apple doing even better.

Edit: Ive also got Solaris on Download atm.  Considering using that rather than FreeBSD for lappy or the Q-Pack ive just ordered.

Well despite the small disagreement seen within this thread, I am very much grateful for all the advice I have recieved.  I think I will go for Ubuntu as the support does seem tremendous if things go a bit wrong.  I am only a noob in the sense of OSs outside Windows/Apple domain and think I will find it relatively easy to work out.  Will let you know how I get on in due course.  Many Thanks again.

Quote from: mrtWell despite the small disagreement seen within this thread, I am very much grateful for all the advice I have recieved.  I think I will go for Ubuntu as the support does seem tremendous if things go a bit wrong.  I am only a noob in the sense of OSs outside Windows/Apple domain and think I will find it relatively easy to work out.  Will let you know how I get on in due course.  Many Thanks again.

Good luck matey, not that youll need it  :thumbup:

if anything breaks, dont hesitate to ask on here, we have prolly come across it before :)

Quote from: BXGTi16V

Quote from: Chaostime

Quote from: BXGTi16VSurely a lie is when I knowingly tell something that isnt true?

I know what I see, and I know that BSD installs more easily on difficult hardware such as laptops. Linux falls over and has a hissy fit. BSD also has much better USB support.

I also know that a lot of linux installers are a PITA designed for nerds, by nerds. The FreeBSD installer looks daunting, but in actuality all you have to do (For the simplest install) is about 6 keystrokes and a few disc swaps.

Update rollback is absolutley essential. If you use a large number of apps or are always keen to test new stuff then you appreciate being able to roll back to a state where a certain version of a certain app will work - linux is a total PITA for this. In a corporate environment (Especially as a server - and I know this from bitter experience) it is absolutely *essential* that you can roll back updates in case something goes wrong.

The last experience I had with the flavour of the month distribution of linux (Seems to change once a week) was with Ubuntu - put the install disc in a laptop, it hung on startup - great beginnings there.

Theyre not quite different either.BSD dictates UNIX, of which linux is a lookalike. So its more like a cousin, except on BSD, you can run the Linux software too.

i read about half of the first paragraph and dismissed the whole thing because you clearly dont know wtf youre on about.


Please come back when you have actually researched a little

Sure, I only have 23 years experience of computing, 7 of those in the profession, and being an IT manager and formerly a datacomms engineer working mainly in Solaris/UNIX03 and AS/400 i clearly know nothing about UNIX/UNIX a like OSs !

And youd think thatd help wouldnt you? ;)

You seem to be basing all your judgements on what linux was like about 5 years ago, back when even redhat and mandrake needed you to piss about in configs and didnt calibrate X or OSS (or indeed ALSA) properly, its moved on quite a bit since then


(sorry for the late reply, just flew back in from france about 10 mins ago)