Last message on previous page:
Slackware junkie, here.

Started in late '97 with Slackware '96, as it was oft referred to. Official name was 3.2. I've tried numerous distros, but it's like driving an automatic after driving a stick for so long...

I hop in front of the keyboard, power up, and smash my foot against the floor where I would expect the clutch.

It's just nice to have such a level of control over your operating system. Also a really good way to learn the innards of Linux, if you don't mind headaches.

Cheers,

Hehe :-D

A temporary headache is worth it tho because you are rewarded in the end :-D

This guide is pretty good, but the fact that there is a need for this guide demonstrates one of the larger problems with the Linux community. There are so many people working on developing linux, but so much of their efforts are not coordinated and are just being duplicated in other distributions. I think we should have maybe 3 distributions. One tiny distribution that requires very little hard drive space, very low hardware requirements, etc. that would work perfectly on an old x486 computer. One mid distribution that has a few extra bells and whistles and targets the same audience as WinXP Home. Finally, a third distribution that is full blown with everything a system administrator or enthusiast could ask for.

So many of the distributions try to differ from each other by the 'extra' things they add which aren't a part of the kernel. Why not just seperate each of those projects like they should be and let the user select the features they want when ordering. You could get a drop down list of media players, text editors, browsers, etc. that could just be tacked on. Or just download a bare-bones copy and you could get all the 'extra' apps on your own by visiting sourceforge.net.

If the Linux community were to become a little more united, I am sure it could take off much more than it has. If it were to offer a user experience that surpassed Windows XP or Windows Vista for the new user, then people would buy into it and use it. Right now there are too many problems with no standard installation system (there are usually multiple options for each piece of software), having to tweak things to get them to work (With Windows, things usually always work just by plugging it in or using the ONE installation file), and reliance on the command line to do any tweaking. The good news is that it is steadily getting better.

Of course I can look past the current faults with Linux, I just can't get past the lack of driver support for Printers, the bad drivers for ATI video cards, and the lack of game selection. None of that is directly the fault of Linux... but while moving to Linux will give me those drawbacks, I just don't see any benefits to counterbalance them except for the upfront cost. I have owned Windows XP for years and it hasn't cost me a cent and very little time to keep it updated. With Linux, staying updated can be much more of a pain.

-Signed, Wannabe Linux user who is stuck using Microsoft's inferior, but more usable OS.

I see the merrit in what you have to say here, but I think there are issues with the concept.

Attempting to get all of the many figureheads of the various projects that come together to form what most people call Linux would cause so much grief and arguments over the "best way to do things" that little would get done. The reason that the OSS community moves forward (and in many areas much more quickly than any other OS) is due to a lack over overall heirarchy of management for the system as a whole. It's the fact that I can just turn around one day and say "y'know, I have this really cool idea for a process scheduling scheme that may work great for embedded ARM9 systems, let me try it out" without having to get the OK from upper management that allows Linux to be many things to many people. Innovation and a bit of bedlam are strongly coupled as I see things. If you try to organize things too rigidly little innovation will take place.

Installation of software on a cobbled-together system such as GNU/Linux (just in case Stallman's reading this) is easier than it should be expected to be. Is it as easy as Windows? Often the answer is no. That being said, I would take a software-manager-based install where I just select the software and click "Apply" over a double-click install of poorly written software that fails for an unknown reason. At least when things go south in OSS-land, it is usually very vocal about why things went bad. When all is working as it should, installing software in Linux should be as easy as using the built-in software manager to install (many new user-oriented distros have made great strides in this area) or, in the worst case, a "./configure && make && make install" from the root terminal.

Adressing this point, as Linux is a kernel with other trapping around it, the unfortunate fact is that to really work with your system on a level not even possible in Windows, you are going to have to work with the terminal. I don't mean to excuse it, but I just see it as a necessary tradeoff for more customizability and control over the system (i.e. customizing visual settings: you make a bad change with a graphics-only system and you could be up a creek, but if you have a non-graphical terminal to fall back on you can gracefully recover without the need to even reboot).

As for the "levels" approach to distros, this is already somewhat implemented in two respects: namely that there is an inherrant gradient of distros starting with full-featured desktop distros (may have some media functionality removed for legal reasons but can easily be added) to the most bare, floppy-based systems you can imagine. Additionally, most of the distros do allow you to choose what apps are installed when actually doing the install. This is a luxury Windows does not afford you, you must uninstall Windows components after they have been installed. Do you prefer the minimalist feel of Fluxbox? You have the choice to not install KDE at all (along with it's many niceties). Want the whole shebang including built-in media burning and Windows Network Neiborhood compatibilty? Install Gnome or KDE with SAMBA. One of the most powerful benefits of Linux is that is can be exactly what you want and nothing more.

Your points concerning driver support and games are quite valid, however the benefits of Linux are pretty damn sweet once you get familiar with the system and start seeing things that just aren't feasible with Windows. Lauch any application with a media keyboard not supported by Windows? No problem, just install a small app and either edit a config file or use a frontend for that config file. My current keyboard and mouse combo (Logitech MX Duo) is not and will likely never be supported by Logitech under any 64-bit version of Windows (only 32-bit versions of the iTouch software package which, aparently, includes drivers. 32-bit drivers will not work in a 64-bit system) and the only app-lauching keybinder programs I found in Windows only works for predefined keys (not media keys) or required editing a config file. The latter sounds a lot like Linux, huh?

Another example is my scanner. Windows XP Pro x64 will not support it out-of-the-box and HP states clearly on their site that they will not be writing a driver for it. Period. I cannot use the scanner in Windows and never will be able to, my only recourse is to buy a new scanner. In 64-bit Linux, a scanner interfacing utility named SANE recognized and utilized my scanner right away, no need to edit any config files. I plugged it in, installed the software, and it just worked.

Keeping systems up-to-date with the latest versions can still be tricky on the older, more spartan distros, this is still true. However, any of the new desktop-oriented distros have great tools to keep not only your OS up-to-date and patched, but also updates your installed applications. How cool is that? Even many of the not-so-new-user-friendly distros have great tools to keep your entire system up to date. I think that for any who want to use Linux on the desktop, this point has been solved.

The last and perhaps most obvious (to me) benefit is that, while setup takes a bit more effort, once it is setup it is much more stable and reliable than Windows. You do not have the system degredation seen in Windows from a combination of crappy software install/uninstall, malware cleaning, and Window's penchant to change settings randomly from time to time (is this an attempt to tweak performance, fix perceived issues, or something between?). As a matter of fact, the final push that moved me from dualbooting with Windows as the default to Linux as the default, only using Windows for gaming, was the hard crash Windows experienced after upgrading to SP2. Simply put, it would not boot, even into safe mode. Basically, a good Linux install is like a detuned diesel engine: it will literally run forever and do just what it's asked and if it does break, you can just repair it without the need to buy a brand-new engine or overhauling the entire thing.

Linux is not as user friendly as Windows. I have no delusions of that. When everything's working as it should on newer desktop-oriented distros, it can be as friendly (maybe even more so) than Windows. It is when you want to do more with your system or something doesn't install properly. This is due to the cognizant tradeoff to allow more control over the system by letting you into the guts of the OS and letting you know what is going on. This type of flexibility is what makes it such a great choice for applications ranging from webservers to embeded systems and robots to your desktop.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that following your suggestions would most definately make Linux easier to use but would also take away some of the most powerful features that other OS's lack.

I don't mean to post this as any personal attack on you or your position at all, Lamoni, just posting my own views and experiences with the penguin since I moved over.

Yes indeed :-D

Besides managing large teams of developers is very challenging while managing smaller teams is easier.

Usually if your project or distro has good ideas they will get passed upstream. This is what open source is all about you're sharing ideas and source code so everyone benefits upstream and downstream.

:-D

Linux is like candy, cars, or girls. How can you have just one? Pull down 4 or 8 distros and build up a box from some old junk and enjoy the ride. Chances are you'll soon be stripping XP off your good machine and installing your new favorite flavor of Linux Or you will run back to the safety of the herd, tail between legs Which way you go will be determined by your inner self, not by what we say here or which distro you try first.

What's good for gaming?

It depends on the kind of games you play.

Virtually any distro is good for Linux games.

If you're asking which distro is good for win32 games then I would say any decent desktop distro should work like Fedora Core 6, Ubuntu 6.10, SuSE 10.x, etc with WINE, Cedega, VMWare, QEMU, Win4Lin, Xen, etc or dual booting.

It depends on the kind of games you play.

Virtually any distro is good for Linux games.

If you're asking which distro is good for win32 games then I would say any decent desktop distro should work like Fedora Core 6, Ubuntu 6.10, SuSE 10.x, etc with WINE, Cedega, VMWare, QEMU, Win4Lin, Xen, etc or dual booting.

Well I mostly play battlefield 2, FEAR, and I would like to use xfire if possible...I have ubuntu....not sure which one though

I late update...

http://appdb.winehq.org/appbrowse.php?iCatId=2

http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/

http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/gam [...] me_id=3618

http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/gam [...] me_id=3984


Looks like BF2 is officially supported by Cedega ( the commercial version of WINE ).

Sorry FEAR does not work as far as I can determine.

BLEEDING edge,
http://www.sabayonlinux.org/

try out a download, I like how most distros run on a Live CD/DVD mode now, it makes picking and choosing that much better.

I also like the tiny distros like damn small, http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/ great for you 486'ers
way better than windows 95 - windows has crash you must reboot - I had to reboot because I typed windows 95. - error 4564568464521521654 - - reboot -

BF2 will run nicely on most servers without "punk buster" under cedega, the only problem is getting the VGA card working correctly lol

It promises a LOT -
it has lots of eye candy ...
but does it really deliver what it claims?