What Linux Distro do the Linux users of GH use?

[dndlmx]

Would Crunchbang be a good distro to start of on Linux?

I had few classes of Unix/Linux so I got the basics, but I never used it on my personnal machines.

Crunchbang is a good distro, but it's no longer supported; it's still usable, but it takes a bit of work to point it at somewhere to let it actually get security updates. You could try !#++ or BunsenLabs, they're both based on the same ideas.

I found both Crunchbang and Linux Mint to be nice and friendly for transitioning to a full time linux base.

Is Lubuntu still a nice one these days, I used to like that.

[rowdy]

What do you run openbsd on,  and what do you use it for just curious.

BSD, Solaris, and variants are typically used to run network infrastructure. I don't know why anyone would use it for a "desktop" OS unless it's a new trend.

I used Solaris with CDE on a Sun SparcStation, but that was a different life...

Yes, that was many moons ago for sure.   ...but today...

I miss VMS, too. But I doubt there are many VAX servers still in operation today.

I discarded my VAXen several years ago.

They worked, but the OS licence had expired, and it didn't seem worth it to keep them running.

I still have the HDDs though.

[smeckledorfed]

I'm just starting out on Linux, my boss gave me his install DVDs of Ubuntu and CentOS so I can start learning.  Been rocking Ubuntu for a couple of weeks now but am planning to give CentOS a shot next week.

[RedRoboHood]

I played with Red Hat a bit on my dad's computer a long time ago, but I've never really used Linux since then. My current machine has two hard drive slots, so I'm finally going to install Ubuntu on a separate drive from my main (Windows) drive. I figure that I'll probably eventually be using several different distros along the line anyway, so I might as well start with the most popular one.

[smknjoe]

Again, why go through the trouble of separate drives and multi-booting when you can just install it as a virtual machine? It's much easier, safer, and great for testing.

[henz]

Again, why go through the trouble of separate drives and multi-booting when you can just install it as a virtual machine? It's much easier, safer, and great for testing.

Well there are some reasons, usually hardware specific reasons. Example. Try gaming on a vm. Try programming a tipro bord in a 64 bit os.

So in my world. I need windows 7 64 bit for gaming. windows 7 32 bit to program my tipro. And my main os is Arch(And no i dont want to have arch in a vm.Because windows suck ). But for testing purposes i totally agree.

[smknjoe]

Those are all good reasons to virtualize. So, again, I don't see the point in multi-boot for the average/casual linux user.

[smknjoe]

...especially if they are just wanting to test an OS, which is what this thread is essentially about...

[rowdy]

I've tried multi-booting, but ended up with multiple workstations (currently two).

The biggest simple issue was checking emails while playing a game.  With a single multi-boot OS that was impossible.

But with two separate workstations, one for gaming and one for emails and other stuff - simple

Here's a thought - what we need is an interface to email apps and a means of using that from within a game.

For example in a technological FPS you'd go up to the nearest computer and check your emails.  In a non-technological FPS you'd maybe go to the nearest post office or similar to check mails.

In RPG you'd go to the nearest messenger or witch doctor or something to check emails.

Others where your character is augmented, you could have a HUD option for checking emails (in the real world).

[smknjoe]

Another good reason to virtualize (your mail machine.)

[RedRoboHood]

I plan on eventually using some form of Linux as my main OS, and I'm less interested in the ease of setting it up than I am in just learning about Linux and experiencing using it as a standalone OS. While I could run it as a virtual machine, that's not what I'll be doing farther into the future, and I usually prefer to avoid intermediate steps when they don't directly help with the final result.

[smknjoe]

That reason doesn't make much sense since you still have to install the OS as if it was on a separate piece of hardware. It's just easier because you don't need a separate machine or have to wipe out your current set up.

[RedRoboHood]

Here's a thought - what we need is an interface to email apps and a means of using that from within a game.

For example in a technological FPS you'd go up to the nearest computer and check your emails.  In a non-technological FPS you'd maybe go to the nearest post office or similar to check mails.

In RPG you'd go to the nearest messenger or witch doctor or something to check emails.

Others where your character is augmented, you could have a HUD option for checking emails (in the real world).

That sounds like it could easily lead to invasions of privacy, or at least outcry from people who think that it's an invasion of privacy even if it isn't.

That reason doesn't make much sense since you still have to install the OS as if it was on a separate piece of hardware. It's just easier because you don't need a separate machine or have to wipe out your current set up.

Yes, "as if". This is probably just me, but I'm not really a fan of "as if", and since I'm eventually going to be using it on its own piece of hardware anyway, I don't see a point in delaying that.

[smknjoe]

Just check your mail on your phone, rowdy.

[fohat.digs]

Dual-booting is generally OK beyond the need to boot in and out to change OS, but this probably has some security benefit.

You can use Grub and go through Linux, or have 2 hard drives and change the boot order in BIOS.

Ubuntu is the most widely used, and now has a large contract with the government of China, so it is certainly not going anywhere.

My great heartaches with Ubuntu are always getting through the initial internet setup, whether wired or wireless, it always seems like hours of unecessary agony. It almost never "just works" for me, and usually takes half a dozen iterations of exchanges with people on the help forums.

[smknjoe]

I thought you were going to dual-boot, RRH? If you are installing it on a separate machine then it doesn't matter. What do you mean "as if" and you're not a fan of "as if?

[smknjoe]

Dual-booting is generally OK beyond the need to boot in and out to change OS, but this probably has some security benefit.

I just want to hear a valid argument for a multi-boot set up for average Joe in this era of easy virtutalization. If you are truly that concerned about security then you definitely don't want to dual-boot either. You would want a completely separate machine. 

[rowdy]

Here's a thought - what we need is an interface to email apps and a means of using that from within a game.

For example in a technological FPS you'd go up to the nearest computer and check your emails.  In a non-technological FPS you'd maybe go to the nearest post office or similar to check mails.

In RPG you'd go to the nearest messenger or witch doctor or something to check emails.

Others where your character is augmented, you could have a HUD option for checking emails (in the real world).

That sounds like it could easily lead to invasions of privacy, or at least outcry from people who think that it's an invasion of privacy even if it isn't.

No, it would be like using the game as an email client, except it interfaced with the email client on your game PC (with appropriate authorisation and authentication etc.).

Just check your mail on your phone, rowdy.

Way too many emails to manage that way - I've tried.

[RedRoboHood]

I thought you were going to dual-boot, RRH? If you are installing it on a separate machine then it doesn't matter. What do you mean "as if" and you're not a fan of "as if?

As I said, I plan on eventually using Linux as my main (probably only) OS. At this point in time, I'm going to dual-boot with Ubuntu and Windows on separate hard drives, which is the closest thing I can get to that.

What I meant by the "as if" comment was that the real thing (running Linux directly) an an emulation of the real thing (running Linux in a virtual machine) have subtle differences that you can't really know about until you've tried both.

No, it would be like using the game as an email client, except it interfaced with the email client on your game PC (with appropriate authorisation and authentication etc.).

The problem is that any email client has the potential to do what they want with your private information, and adding each game you play to the list of email clients you use just increases the risk of one of those clients doing something you don't want. Plus, it's just another thing that game developers would need to add to each and every one their games (if they want to appeal to all audiences).

[smknjoe]

So, you've never used VMware and you don't trust it...is basically why you don't want to do it. That's cool. I was just curious as to why. As far as *nix goes there is absolutely no difference when virtualized.

[RedRoboHood]

And that is where you have me confused. If, as you say, "there is absolutely no difference when virtualized", why should anyone prefer virtualization over the alternative? The only reason you could possibly prefer one over the other is if there are differences.

[smknjoe]

Unless you have some specific reason for not wanting to virtualize, and there are valid reasons for not wanting to do it but I have yet to hear any, there is no difference in functionality or performance for the average Linux user. Why go through the trouble of installing a separate drive, potentially losing data or the config of your "main" drive, and then have to reboot every time you want to switch between OSs when you can run multiple OSs simultaneously without even rebooting your machine?

[RedRoboHood]

For me, all of my data and configuration that I'm actually interested in keeping is easily recoverable even if my entire house goes up in flames. As for the difficulty of switching between OSes, I'm more interested in learning to use Linux as Linux than I am in trying Linux out to augment my existing setup, so not being able to just instantly switch back and forth will make that easier to do.

[smknjoe]

It's all good, man. You just don't want to. I get it...now.

[RedRoboHood]

Honestly, that's kind of rude. You asked me for my reasons, and I gave them to you. It's not because I "just don't want to", and I've already explained why multiple times. If you don't feel like arguing any more, then fine, don't; those kinds of belittling statements are completely unnecessary, though.

[smknjoe]

Okay, you want me to keep on going...just wanting to learn is not a valid reason for not virtualizing. You still have to install the OS (virtually) and use the OS (virtually). So, how are you missing out on learning about Linux by virtualizing?

[sethk_]

So, you've never used VMware and you don't trust it...is basically why you don't want to do it. That's cool. I was just curious as to why. As far as *nix goes there is absolutely no difference when virtualized.

I have personally had **** luck when trying to install any form of linux on a VM, and I always get stuck with **** resolutions as well, and it is less hassle for me to also dual boot it, I don't know why, but I have had better luck and it is easier for me to just throw it on another HDD and dual boot.

[RedRoboHood]

Okay, you want me to keep on going...just wanting to learn is not a valid reason for not virtualizing. You still have to install the OS (virtually) and use the OS (virtually). So, how are you missing out on learning about Linux by virtualizing?

I said you could politely stop arguing if you want, but I guess you missed that. Anyway...

It's not that I wouldn't learn about Linux; it's that I wouldn't learn how to use Linux as if it were a standalone OS. Simply having the ability to switch back and forth between Windows and Linux in two seconds means that I would be less likely to learn to do things the right way in Linux and more likely to just fall back to doing them the way I've previously done them, in Windows.

[smknjoe]

So, you've never used VMware and you don't trust it...is basically why you don't want to do it. That's cool. I was just curious as to why. As far as *nix goes there is absolutely no difference when virtualized.

I have personally had **** luck when trying to install any form of linux on a VM, and I always get stuck with **** resolutions as well, and it is less hassle for me to also dual boot it, I don't know why, but I have had better luck and it is easier for me to just throw it on another HDD and dual boot.

That's a valid argument. I've had that experience in the past as well, but it was years ago and with a hypervisor other than VMware. Have you tried VMware within the past few years?

[smknjoe]

Okay, you want me to keep on going...just wanting to learn is not a valid reason for not virtualizing. You still have to install the OS (virtually) and use the OS (virtually). So, how are you missing out on learning about Linux by virtualizing?

I said you could politely stop arguing if you want, but I guess you missed that. Anyway...

It's not that I wouldn't learn about Linux; it's that I wouldn't learn how to use Linux as if it were a standalone OS. Simply having the ability to switch back and forth between Windows and Linux in two seconds means that I would be less likely to learn to do things the right way in Linux and more likely to just fall back to doing them the way I've previously done them, in Windows.

I really think you are cheating yourself out of learning even more about Linux and computer hardware and software in general by not virtualizing. And I'd be glad to answer any questions you have about it. There is no way to do something "right or wrong" depending on whether it's virtualized or not. It's Linux and it works the same either way. I get the feeling that you may have gotten some incorrect information somewhere. Like I said, feel free to PM me if you decide you want to try virtualizing. I'd be glad to help. 

[RedRoboHood]

I really think you are cheating yourself out of learning even more about Linux and computer hardware and software in general by not virtualizing. And I'd be glad to answer any questions you have about it. There is no way to do something "right or wrong" depending on whether it's virtualized or not. It's Linux and it works the same either way. I get the feeling that you may have gotten some incorrect information somewhere. Like I said, feel free to PM me if you decide you want to try virtualizing. I'd be glad to help.

Out of curiosity, what sorts of things would I learn from virtualizing that I wouldn't learn otherwise? I've already set up and used virtual machines for things like old DOS and Windows 3 programs in the past, so the virtualization itself isn't new to me. I think I was a bit unclear earlier when talking about "right and wrong" ways to do things; the reason I'm trying out Linux at all is that, from what I've read, it can be helpful for productivity as a software developer. I'd like to try doing things "the Linux way" if only to see how effective they are compared to how I've already been doing them in Windows.

[smknjoe]

Well, with VMs you can change the hardware configuration to specs beyond what your actual hardware supports which can be beneficial for testing your software for instance. You also have the luxury of testing out experimental drivers or other software without fear of hosing your system. You have a lot of flexibility you don't have with a "native" installation.

[smknjoe]

Is it that you just don't trust yourself having Windows so easily accessible and you fear that you may just use Windows instead of Linux because it's what you are used to? I can certainly understand that as well.

[sethk_]

So, you've never used VMware and you don't trust it...is basically why you don't want to do it. That's cool. I was just curious as to why. As far as *nix goes there is absolutely no difference when virtualized.

I have personally had **** luck when trying to install any form of linux on a VM, and I always get stuck with **** resolutions as well, and it is less hassle for me to also dual boot it, I don't know why, but I have had better luck and it is easier for me to just throw it on another HDD and dual boot.

That's a valid argument. I've had that experience in the past as well, but it was years ago and with a hypervisor other than VMware. Have you tried VMware within the past few years?

I have been on and off trying different distros, with my latest try 2 months ago.

[smknjoe]

Were you able to successfully install VMware tools, pwnnarwhal? I've had problems before dong that sometimes.

[RedRoboHood]

Well, with VMs you can change the hardware configuration to specs beyond what your actual hardware supports which can be beneficial for testing your software for instance. You also have the luxury of testing out experimental drivers or other software without fear of hosing your system. You have a lot of flexibility you don't have with a "native" installation.

Very good point. However, am I correct in assuming that it would be just as easy to host those sorts of VMs from directly within Ubuntu as it would be to host them from within Windows alongside a more "generic" Ubuntu VM that I would use for most purposes?

Is it that you just don't trust yourself having Windows so easily accessible and you fear that you may just use Windows instead of Linux because it's what you are used to? I can certainly understand that as well.

It's not really a fear per se, but you're right, I don't trust myself. Those sorts of psychological effects are real and apply to everyone, so I figure that I might as well remove them to make it easier to just focus on what I want to actually do.

[smknjoe]

Yes, you can do everything just as easily within Linux with the exception of Windows gaming (in a VM). That's been changing a lot recently and will likely be just as good as a native install soon. As for the not trusting yourself, I totally understand. That's why I go a blank keyboard when I decided I had to learn to type properly.

[smknjoe]

*got.

[RedRoboHood]

Yeah, Valve's support of Linux (and Ubuntu specifically) will only speed up the improvement of gaming on Linux.

[jdcarpe]

Is it that you just don't trust yourself having Windows so easily accessible and you fear that you may just use Windows instead of Linux because it's what you are used to? I can certainly understand that as well.

This has always been my main issue with virtualization. I know which OS is native, and for some reason mentally, I would tend to use the native OS over the virtualized one.

What I do now is set up whichever OS I want to try on a dedicated machine for it. I have plenty of hardware, so finding a testbed is not really a problem. If I want to try #!, I turn my Windows machine off and stick to using the #! machine for a week.



***
Right now I'm forcing myself to use a Chromebox at home. I think for most people, who only use a computer for things like webmail, Facebook, YouTube, etc., a Chromebox or Chromebook is a perfectly usable option. The OS updates automatically, isn't really a target for viruses, and you can use web apps exactly like you would on Windows. You are supposed to keep all your storage in the cloud, so the tiny SSD is all you really need. Now, of course, Google wants you tied to their ecosystem, so things like Gmail, Google Drive, Docs, Sheets, and Slides are all integrated, and you do need a Google account to log in to the OS. But you can log in as Guest to get around that. And you can easily use Microsoft's online versions of Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and OneNote instead of the Google apps, if you prefer, and store your files in OneDrive. Or Dropbox. You are limited to using the Chrome browser, but many people use that as a matter of preference, regardless of OS. Heck, I can even do CAD modeling in TinkerCAD.

Now, with Chrome OS, if you lose your internet connection, you can do a few things in offline mode, but you are very limited. However, to many people today, a computer is simply an appliance for delivering the internet. These cheap little Chrome OS devices are perfectly capable of delivering that experience to the casual user.

[user 18]

Here's what I would consider valid reasons not to virtualize.

1) If your host installation or hard drive is corrupted, or fails, it breaks all of your installations.
2) You are subjecting your environment to the overhead of running two operating systems. Essentially, all the resources you spend on the host are wasted in that you can't use them for the actual tasks you're running in the virtual system. This is much more of a problem the older the machine is -- laptops from as new as a couple years ago may only have 2-4GB of RAM.
3) It's more complicated for the user to set up. I would say that it's much easier to choose an OS from a menu at boot time than have to learn how to manage virtual machines. Navigating hardware passthrough for virtual machines has been somewhat tricky in my experience.
4) Gaming is much more difficult on a virtual machine.
5) It forces one to give the new OS a more full-fledged try, without the temptation of just doing all the work in the host.

And some valid reasons to virtualize.

1) Portability. You can move a virtual OS between hosts and it should work essentially the same.
2) Ease of testing. If you just want to play with something briefly, it's often not worth rebooting. Likewise if you want to test a program, test an OS, virtualization can be useful.
3) Ability to switch between several different systems at will.

Now, not all of these arguments are necessarily valuable for any one person. For an average consumer, I don't think that running many different OSs in VMs is necessarily useful to a consumer. Personally, I would run one host and one VM, and when I'm done with that VM (after days, months, whatever), I will either set it aside or blow it away. I'll then install the next OS I want to test out. Unless one has a powerful system, and can run multiple VMs at a time with decent system resources, the need to switch between VMs becomes essentially like dual booting again, only without a power cycle.

When I built up my OS, I did a minimal install of Debian Jessie, and added only the packages I needed to make the system work the way I wanted it to. The result was a very slim, very lightweight OS that allowed me access to the maximum of hardware resources. Running such a system as a VM on top of Windows would eliminate the benefit of a slim OS by requiring me to run Windows, which is a bit of a resource hog. I have tried using VMs for gaming in the past, and it hasn't worked, so unless I've missed some major revolution in VMs in the past couple of years, it necessitates either a separate system or a dual-boot setup to allow me to game. It would also be nice to have a separate system for the purposes of gaming, to eliminate the need to dual-boot, but a second system unfortunately isn't financially feasible for me at the moment.

I agree that a dual-boot setup isn't ideal for someone who splits their time relatively evenly between two or more environments. You do spend a lot of time rebooting that way. But personally, when the only time I make it into Windows is to play a game, the extra 20-30 seconds of boot time both booting into Windows and back into Linux afterwards is worth not having to deal with the overhead of Windows the other 99% of the time.

[smknjoe]

Maybe we should start a separate Virtualization thread?

I'm a big fan of virtualization if you couldn't tell , but I also know there are limitations. I have to say that I'm a little surprised at the lack of enthusiasm from what I consider a "techie" site.

user 18:

1. That has nothing to do with virtualization. If you have hd/fs problems then you will have problems with your host machine as well.
2. Not an issue for modern machines.
3. What? Managing  VMs is as easy as managing tabs in a browser.
4. True. If you are a serious gamer you definitely need to have a native install of Windows. Now there have been some really good improvements in graphics support with WMware in the last year or two. So, if you are a more casual gamer then you will probably be happy with a Windows VM if you use VMware Workstation on a modern PC with a fairly recent graphics card.
5. True (if you don't have another PC with your old OS close by )

The main things I love about virtualization are the ability to test and the ability to restore and migrate machines to different hardware and software platforms. You also have the ability to have separate machines for specific tasks or for running software that is no longer supported. There are tons of reasons to run VMs.

The biggest problem I see people run into when they try virtualization is that they want to use a free hypervisor like Virtualbox or KVM and there is huge difference between those and VMware. I've tried them all and they just don't compare. If you do want to try it out do yourself a favor and use VMware Workstation or Fusion. 

[davkol]

VMware? That's the company sued for allegedly violating GNU GPL? No, without thanks.

[smknjoe]

VMware? That's the company sued for allegedly violating GNU GPL? No, without thanks.

RMS, is that you?

[jdcarpe]

VMware sounds great, if only I didn't have to spend money to get it.

[smknjoe]

VMware sounds great, if only I didn't have to spend money to get it.

That's it's main drawback. I don't think it's that much though. Maybe $80 for Windows/Linux and $50 for Mac?

[smknjoe]

Wow, it's gone up in price. It's just under $200 for Workstation and it's still ~$50 for Mac. I get it through my company so I wasn't sure about the price.

[davkol]

VMware? That's the company sued for allegedly violating GNU GPL? No, without thanks.

RMS, is that you?

I have basic understanding why Linux has been successful (hint: GNU GPLv2), I'm not ignorant to ethical issues, and I'm not a shill. This apparently isn't true for everyone in this thread.

[smknjoe]

VMware? That's the company sued for allegedly violating GNU GPL? No, without thanks.

RMS, is that you?

I have basic understanding why Linux has been successful (hint: GNU GPLv2), I'm not ignorant to ethical issues, and I'm not a shill. This apparently isn't true for everyone in this thread.

I just assume everything I read is gospel without knowing all sides of the story or waiting for a case to go to trial to see what evidence is presented, but that's just me.

[RedRoboHood]

I was not aware that VMware was so expensive. If, as smknjoe says, the free "alternatives" really aren't good enough, that in itself is a big reason for me, personally, not to use a VM for something that I am doing due in no small part to the fact that it's free (installing Linux).