Is there anyone here that's jumped into linux recently that would like to share the experience?
Ok, in Debian GNOME now. Mouse works flawlessly. Stupid ubuntu/mint kernel.
I forgot how fun it is to be outside the windows comfort zone.
This one is promising, but I still have the other three desktop environments to test with Debian.
Ok, in Debian GNOME now. Mouse works flawlessly. Stupid ubuntu/mint kernel.
I forgot how fun it is to be outside the windows comfort zone.
This one is promising, but I still have the other three desktop environments to test with Debian.
Actually i suggest you go with Ubuntu or Mint instead of pure Debian (Ubuntu is based on Debian, Mint is based on Ubuntu). They are much more friendly distros for a beginner.
KDE is next up, then lxde and xfce...
I can get an Arch setup fully set up and configured in about two hours. It takes about the same amount of time to get an Ubuntu or Debian system set up properly.
Not really.
Ubuntu (and 95% of other distros) has two major problems -
1) It obfuscates and hides the configuration from the user.
2) It tries to second guess how you want your computer configured. The fact that the mouse worked under Debian but not under Ubuntu suggests that it was a problem with how Ubuntu is set up.
The reality with Arch is that unless you've come from Gentoo, Slackware or one of the BSDs, you won't really have any of the experience needed until you try installing it. I used (and abused) Ubuntu for a full year, and yet I learned more about Linux in a week of Arch usage.
The problem is that in my experience, things like Ubuntu break so often that you need to know these things anyway. At least with Arch you built the thing from the ground up so you know what to do if something breaks. Which happens less often because you've built the OS to meet your needs and your hardware configuration...
I would still recommend Ubuntu or Mint to the thread starter. From my understanding he seeks an introductory distro. It is highly unlike he is going to permanently keep his first Linux installation anyway.
The thing with Ubuntu is, you're only really going to learn how to use Ubuntu. It is not really an 'introduction' to Linux. Seeing as the OP is thinking of 'trying *nix', I'd recommend against such distros - Ubuntu will not prepare you for *nix in any way.
Of course, I could have misundertood the OP's intent...
Who cares, just pick one. I swear to God, Linux users are their own worst enemies.
Who cares, just pick one. I swear to God, Linux users are their own worst enemies.
I like my DOS comfort zone... it helps me sleep at night when I have nightmares of iMac G3s replacing all of my IBMs.
I prefer Windows and DOS as well. You can do just about anything in DOS.
Superfluous: Thanks, I will definitely keep you in mind. Debian is looking more and more like the winning candidate. I'm going to do some nitty-gritty research for my ps/2 issues tonight though, because I'd hate to let a simple change of which I'm ignorant cause me to dismiss three of the top recommended distributions (ubuntu, mint, and mandriva). It's apparent to me that something is consistently not configured properly in the default configuration on those three that Debian has covered. Finding out what that is will be the tricky part :P
Playing with Arch and Slackware starting in just a few minutes. I don't expect to dive into either of them whole-heartedly, but I feel I need to do it now while I'm still open to anything... once I get 2 months into using Debian, Mint, or whatever I choose, I doubt I'll want to just hop over to Arch on a whim.
I've never heard of a Unix vs DOS argument. Largely because it's like comparing MS Word with Notepad...
I've never heard of a Unix vs DOS argument. Largely because it's like comparing MS Word with Notepad...
Show Image(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/87/240803829_9212773615_o.png)
ch: i wasn't accusing anyone of starting an argument, I was just trying to prevent one because I noticed two of the biggest MS proponents on this site make back to back DOS comments.
I admire your sensitivity to other people's feelings, but trolls don't have feelings and they're not people.
Kim Jong Il agrees.... DOS is the best.
Best OS for Best Korea?
Show Image(http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/kcna_03_12/k31_00000011.jpg)
Kim Jong Il agrees.... DOS is the best.
A mission was born; to discover a linux distro that suited my needs, and use it to further develop my linux skills for whatever purpose I may need them down the road, or even just for the fun of it.
Yeah... DOS is MS Word, and unix is notepad.
I'm glad we're thinking on the same page ;)
A mission for developing skills?
Stop being a wimp. Just install Slackware or a *bsd and get on with it.
Ultimately all of those hand-holding "professional" layers of the more glossy distros are going to prevent you from understanding what is really happening.
Well, maybe you're all talk "Mr. Mission", don't mind me...(poke, poke;)
ok, I'm ready to start setting up partitions, MBR, or maybe using a boot utility depending on which seems to work best for my scenario. I'm going to divvy up my hdd into 3 partitions (at least, swaps, etc not included) The one that already exists with WINXP, one for Debian, and one for arch. I would like to be able to boot to each OS via a USB flash drive (I have one with Super GRUB Disk on it already, so that might work out). I want the system to default boot into WINXP with no flash drive inserted. Is GRUB the answer here?
Should I just make an extra partition when installing debian for the arch partition and add arch to that partition and GRUB after I get the debian / xp dual boot situated?
Stop being a wimp. Just install Slackware or a *bsd and get on with it.
lol slowaris, runs better on my computer than vista does haha (and actually can use the wireless I had in it)
far better than arch, which i tried a few months agoPlease qualify this highly generalized statement.
if you want bsd style, try freebsd
if you're really adventurous, plan9 ;-)
I have tried plan 9 from bell labs, it sucks (in the sense that it's a pretty sparse installation ATM), about as useful as Hurd. Both have a liveCD that works fine in vbox, so go see for yourself. The most useful "random OS to name drop and look cool on geekhack" I can think of is Haiku.
Does QNX still provide disk images? It used to have working desktop POSIX-style OS on a single floppy image including a graphical web browser.
Anyway Plan 9 looked interesting, but that editor they provided really was a triumph of mouse-oriented thinking over actual usefulness. And some of their networking stuff worked similarly (as in: looks cool, is actually quite stupid).
not sure as I have no experience with QNX - or real-time kernels/embedded os'. Isn't/wasn't QNX a commercial endeavor?
AFAIK, all development is done on PCs then cross compiled to the source machine. The PC one is probably the appropriate development environment.
far better than arch, which i tried a few months ago
Please qualify this highly generalized statement.
Not a BSD-style OS, a BSD style INIT - I realize that I wrote "itit" in my last post, so perhaps you just misunderstood.
I have tried plan 9 from bell labs, it sucks (in the sense that it's a pretty sparse installation ATM), about as useful as Hurd. Both have a liveCD that works fine in vbox, so go see for yourself. The most useful "random OS to name drop and look cool on geekhack" I can think of is Haiku. It actually runs a full desktop(not that I necessarily equate GUI to useful) with networking and a browser, among other tools.
about arch, i found it fun to use, though i had many segfaults with a lot of apps. packages were not great quality as in not much tested. AUR is a nice idea though done by kiddies without testing.
the community is a bunch of 2 neurones fanboys, it reminded me gentoo fanboys and mac fanboys
the thing is i don't understand why so many people are found of bsd and use linux. when i wanted bsd style *, i used bsd.