LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-03-2014, 10:06 PM   #46
maples
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2013
Location: IN, USA
Distribution: Arch, Debian Jessie
Posts: 810

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmi View Post
So, the question:

What are your favourite Linux versions today, that are:
  • easy to install, use, and maintain, for the average person (NOT Linux geeks who compile their own stuff)
  • and runs really well on old netbooks
I'm posting from an EEE PC (901, if anyone cares), too. 1.6GHz hyper-threaded Atom, 2GB RAM. Right now I'm using Arch, and loving it! Using awesome WM and midori web browser (with 2 LQ tabs open), I use 311 MB of RAM.
Quote:
Note: If you don't have a distro to recommend for old netbooks or old laptops that ANYONE can maintain, kindly spare us the "I compile this for my old desktop, just teach your neighbor how to program" sort of posts.
It depends on what you mean by "ANYONE." I'm the only person in my household who would even be able to vaugely sort out Ubuntu. And less than two years ago, I only had a vauge idea of what I was doing. However, now I'm having almost no trouble with Arch on my laptops and Debian on my server... It simply varies from person to person. My sisters would take years to figure out how to properly use Ubuntu, and even then they wouldn't be able to fix it if something broke.

Last edited by maples; 08-03-2014 at 10:12 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2014, 10:09 PM   #47
selfprogrammed
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota, USA
Distribution: Slackware 13.37
Posts: 290

Rep: Reputation: 55
xxx

Last edited by selfprogrammed; 08-03-2014 at 10:12 PM. Reason: Duplicate ...
 
Old 08-04-2014, 01:59 AM   #48
Timmi
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Distribution: Mint, Win7
Posts: 167

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by maples View Post
It depends on what you mean by "ANYONE."
ANYONE from the general public.

(ie: not just those who have a server and LAN at home and are compiling their own distros... but anyone else too... my daughter, neighbor, my mother, etc.)

Last edited by Timmi; 08-04-2014 at 02:06 AM.
 
Old 08-04-2014, 11:39 PM   #49
maples
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2013
Location: IN, USA
Distribution: Arch, Debian Jessie
Posts: 810

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Then from what I've seen of the general public, I would say that even Ubuntu doesn't cut it. I'm currently in high school, and I constantly see teachers struggling with concepts as simple as enabling/disabling "Extended Desktop." I garuntee that 90% of the general public doesn't know how to boot from a CD if the BIOS isn't already set up to do so.

So, as hard as everyone tries, installing Linux (at least as it is now) is not for the general public. However, once it's installed, the "hard part" is taken care of. So once that's out of the way, then more people would have a basic idea what to do. But, due to Windows's omnipresence, I think that a lot of them will say "Where's Internet Explorer??? Where's my D: drive for my CD reader??? Why can't I install iTunes???" And they would turn around and go back to Windows.

I heard a while ago that Linux was made "by geeks, for geeks." And I think (to a certain extent) that it is true. There's just no way that any ordinary Joe would be able to install any version of Linux without help. And even if it's pre-installed for him, Joe will probably have no idea what anything means, and he will go back to what all of his friends and family use.

PS- 99.999% of people with a router have a home LAN, they just don't know it And setting up a server is MUCH easier than compiling a distro...
 
Old 08-05-2014, 02:13 AM   #50
Timmi
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Distribution: Mint, Win7
Posts: 167

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by maples View Post
So, as hard as everyone tries, installing Linux (at least as it is now) is not for the general public. However, once it's installed, the "hard part" is taken care of. So once that's out of the way, then more people would have a basic idea what to do. But, due to Windows's omnipresence, I think that a lot of them will say "Where's Internet Explorer??? Where's my D: drive for my CD reader??? Why can't I install iTunes???" And they would turn around and go back to Windows.
I've yet to see anyone with Linux Apple (I just like to call it that because it's built on BSD but 99.99999% of people don't know that), iPhone or Linux Android, complain that they don't have internet explorer or a D: drive, and want to go back to Windoze. True, most people do not install their operating system themselves - it is either already installed on their device or someone does it for them. BUT they are able to add software and do some basic maintenance without being an evolving geek, so I do not think my expectations are unreal - nor do we need to give them something even more complicated (just because that is what you use).

Think user-friendly like LinuxMint, and pretty robust, too but which needs less RAM to run comfortably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maples View Post
PS- 99.999% of people with a router have a home LAN, they just don't know it
A home LAN implies that there is communications between their computers (file-sharing and/or software), which is not the case for those 99.999% - accessing a router via wifi but not sharing any ressources beyond that does not constitute a LAN.

Last edited by Timmi; 08-05-2014 at 02:23 AM.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 03:13 AM   #51
Germany_chris
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,021

Rep: Reputation: 479Reputation: 479Reputation: 479Reputation: 479Reputation: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmi View Post
I've yet to see anyone with Linux Apple (I just like to call it that because it's built on BSD but 99.99999% of people don't know that), iPhone or Linux Android, complain that they don't have internet explorer or a D: drive, and want to go back to Windoze. True, most people do not install their operating system themselves - it is either already installed on their device or someone does it for them. BUT they are able to add software and do some basic maintenance without being an evolving geek, so I do not think my expectations are unreal - nor do we need to give them something even more complicated (just because that is what you use).

Think user-friendly like LinuxMint, and pretty robust, too but which needs less RAM to run comfortably.



A home LAN implies that there is communications between their computers (file-sharing and/or software), which is not the case for those 99.999% - accessing a router via wifi but not sharing any ressources beyond that does not constitute a LAN.
BSD is not Linux therefore it's not Linux Apple.

FreeBSD is Just OS X Without the Good Bits

This is as much a myth about OS X as about FreeBSD: that OS X is just FreeBSD with a pretty GUI. The two operating systems do share a lot of code, for example most userland utilities and the C library on OS X are derived from FreeBSD versions. Some of this code flow works in the other direction, for example FreeBSD 9.1 and later include a C++ stack and compiler that were originally developed for OS X, with major parts of the work done by Apple employees. Other parts are very different.

The XNU kernel used on OS X includes a few subsystems from (older versions of) FreeBSD, but is mostly an independent implementation. The similarities in the userland, however, make it much easier to port OS X code to FreeBSD than any other system. For example, both libdispatch (Grand Central Dispatch in Apple's marketing) and libc++ were written for OS X and worked on FreeBSD before any other OS.


https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths

Mac OS and OSX have always stood on their own no matter what a person thinks of the company and it's products. Apple and it's computer OS have had some rough patches (OS 8 and 10.0-3 come to mind) but it's always been it's own quality product.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 04:57 AM   #52
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,453
Blog Entries: 55

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
So what you want is a distro that anyone can use without learning anything new, and can run on any hardware of whatever age? Good luck.
if you find it.
I'd increase the RAM to 2 GB (I've done that on my eeepc 1001HA), and install Xubuntu 14.04.

Last edited by brianL; 08-05-2014 at 04:59 AM.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 10:34 AM   #53
maples
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2013
Location: IN, USA
Distribution: Arch, Debian Jessie
Posts: 810

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
So what you want is a distro that anyone can use without learning anything new, and can run on any hardware of whatever age? Good luck.
if you find it.
I'd increase the RAM to 2 GB (I've done that on my eeepc 1001HA), and install Xubuntu 14.04.
That sounds like the best chances...if Xubuntu is still to RAM-heavy, try Lubuntu.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 04:44 PM   #54
Timmi
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Distribution: Mint, Win7
Posts: 167

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmi View Post
What are your favourite Linux versions today, that are:
  • easy to install, use, and maintain, for the average person (NOT Linux geeks who compile their own stuff)
  • and runs really well on old netbooks
[/B]Note: If you don't have a distro to recommend for old netbooks or old laptops that ANYONE can maintain, kindly spare us the "I compile this for my old desktop, just teach your neighbor how to program" sort of posts.
I am currently looking at:
  • Bodhi The minimum requirements to run Bodhi Linux are only: 300+MHz CPU, 128MB RAM, and 2.5GB hard drive space
  • PeppermintMinimum needs: 256MB RAM (better 512MB-1GB), Intel x86 architecture, 3 GB of available disk space
  • AntiX 266MHz CPU, 128MB RAM, 2GB disk space. new version MX-14 Symbiosis based on XFCE now available
Someone mentioned Toutou - thank you btw, unfortunately my kid didn't like the look of it.
I also would have liked to consider Pinguy and Manjaro because they are supposed to be easy but I haven't found the system requirements on their websites.

BTW guys, the idea is to have a low-RAM footprint... not so it runs on an ancient machine with only 128MB of RAM... but rather, to follow the guideline to have 4X to 8X more RAM in your computer than your OS requires! That way, you know you won't need to find something else, once you've been running it for half a year. Of course, just about any Linux OS desktop under the sun will run in 1GB... but is it desirable... in a netbook that you've upgraded to 1GB when it came with 256MB and XP? I don't think it'll run very fast... that's why the search for something with low RAM requirements... and easy to use.
We don't need 20 of them! We just need one!

Last edited by Timmi; 08-06-2014 at 06:17 PM.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 10:59 PM   #55
maples
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2013
Location: IN, USA
Distribution: Arch, Debian Jessie
Posts: 810

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmi View Post
We don't need 20 of them! We just need one!
...then I think you're kind of missing the whole point of open source software. One of the major advantages is that one project can lead to a dozen others. Linux is a perfect example. You don't like Ubuntu? Then try Fedora. Don't like it? Go for Arch. Too complicated? Go for OpenSUSE. Too GUI-oriented? Install Slack. Don't like manually resolving dependancies? Download Debian. You could go on forever. The point is choice. If there's something about one version that really annoys you, there are at least ten other versions that don't have that annoyance.

Of course, once you find the one you want, nobody's going to knock on your door and make you go to something else. Find the one you want (VMs are really helpful), then get to know it. When you decide that you really like it, then stick with it as long as you want.
 
Old 08-06-2014, 06:05 PM   #56
Timmi
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Distribution: Mint, Win7
Posts: 167

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by maples View Post
...then I think you're kind of missing the whole point of open source software.
Are we? Or are you just missing the point of this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maples View Post
You don't like Ubuntu? Then try Fedora. Don't like it? Go for Arch. Too complicated? Go for OpenSUSE. Too GUI-oriented? Install Slack. Don't like manually resolving dependancies? Download Debian. You could go on forever.
That is why Linux hasn't yet gone mainstream - the general public has no idea about Linux, and when they do read about it in a New-York Times article or their local paper, they find it wayyyy too confusing and sonud too complicated. Then they turn to a friend to help them select something... imagine if they got your answer - that wouldn't help advance the cause, but just set it back in their minds, and push them back towards Windoze or Mac. When someone does make up their mind, and has taken position, as an example, all of a sudden we see that platform take about half of the installed base of the smartphone market... Android has been out for a few years, Linux a few decades... and which attitude has best helped Linux? Linux is no farther along, but Android is. Imagine telling people they have to choose this or that OS for their smartphone - depending on whether you want your phone to talk with your kids or your boss, and depending on what app you want to install on it, you will have to choose a defferent Android... the client just says "Fnck this sh!t, I'm getting an iPhone!" - and that is exactly what you are doing!

But we digress... this is a debate similar to politics, and can be never-ending, and won't help with the question at hand. So let's get back on track.

Last edited by Timmi; 08-06-2014 at 06:22 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2014, 06:13 PM   #57
Timmi
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Distribution: Mint, Win7
Posts: 167

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmi View Post
I am currently looking at:
  • Bodhi The minimum requirements to run Bodhi Linux are only: 300+MHz CPU, 128MB RAM, and 2.5GB hard drive space
  • PeppermintMinimum needs: 256MB RAM (better 512MB-1GB), Intel x86 architecture, 3 GB of available disk space
  • AntiX 266MHz CPU, 128MB RAM, 2GB disk space. new version MX-14 Symbiosis based on XFCE now available
Someone mentioned Toutou - thank you btw, unfortunately my kid didn't like the look of it.
I also would have liked to consider Pinguy and Manjaro because they are supposed to be easy but I haven't found the system requirements on their websites.
Let me add one into the mix: SolydX
Remember when there was LMDE? (Linux Mint Debian Edition) well, after Mint dropped LMDE, this is that very same project's continuance. To quote from their website, the requirements are as follows:
mem/disk usage is 32-bit: 160MB, disk 3.5G ...quite reasonable. I presume XFCE runs faster, but KDE has the better software, would that be accurate?

Last edited by Timmi; 08-08-2014 at 08:56 PM.
 
Old 07-17-2015, 12:39 AM   #58
Timmi
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Distribution: Mint, Win7
Posts: 167

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
UPDATE:
would anyone like to contribute their impressions of setting up and using the newest 2015 versions?

AntiX requires 128MB RAM, 2+GB HDD space (downloads/versions here)
Bodhi e17: 128MB RAM , e18: 256MB RAM
LinuxLiteOS requires 512MB* RAM (occupies 288MB when running)
Peppermint
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good distro for 6 year old laptops? vdogvictor Linux - Newbie 12 06-02-2010 06:41 AM
A good best low end distro for P3,128MB ram Laptop vinnie_vinodh Linux - Newbie 6 05-26-2009 02:45 PM
Seeking a distro to run on 8 MB RAM jgombos Linux - Distributions 6 11-02-2006 09:04 AM
Which Linux distro to use for a low-RAM computer? lostpenguin Linux - Software 7 05-02-2004 07:19 PM
Which distro to choose for low end laptop with 32 MB RAM? onish Linux - Laptop and Netbook 6 02-20-2004 04:02 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration