You know, if you install Ubuntu or openSuse, they will pop up a window and suggest to install the nvidia driver automatically. That would take three seconds as opposed to three hours. And Ubuntu 7.10 comes with Compiz enabled by default.

Hi, thanks for the reply (some time back). My problem is what to type in the terminal. am I supposed to just type "cfdisk", or anything at the front like run cfdisk or something? Hope you can help me because I'll most probably be using DSL or Puppy Linux.

type cfdisk /dev/hda1(replace with actual device)

yep, its working now. thanks a lot!

i would just like to ask, what distro would be good for me if i wanted to learn linux.. like really down to the basics, and the ability to use a simple (but functional gui) whenever i want. i've decided that maybe i would like to try out a bit of linux using the command line to do things.

i thought slackware and debian might be good choices, but are there any others? and also, i would just like to ask, what were the certain pros and cons between slackware and debian. [for one, i know debian has many more packages than what slackware has.]

I would just try Slackware and Debian and see which one you like

learning linux
 

If you're looking for learning generic linux, I don't think you can get any more pure than Slackware (which is exactly why it has such a strong community of supporters). Slackware was a lot easier to get up and running than I anticipated, but it did tend to make you work for everything you got.

I found Debian less frustrating because there are so many crutches available to you if you want a break from the command line (cheat). Just tap into their repositories, and, voila GUI! You can run the same programs on Slackware, but many of the packages are kept in community archives, or had to be compiled. Finally, because Ubuntu, Mepis, Mint, and a million other distros all borrowed from Debian, you can sometimes use those forums, when the Debian crowd is too technical or has lost their patience.

Really, though, you can't go wrong with either.

If you want to look elsewhere, I'd discourage Gentoo. The long compile times means a small mistake can take an hour (or more) to fix. Since you'll be screwing up a lot, it's best to steer clear, That's a shame, because otherwise Gentoo is a great learning distro with great documentation, good community support, and lots of customization options.

Arch linux is another option, though it's a much smaller distribution than the others mentioned. It's bleeding-edge focused, configured by text files, and the repositories are community-driven. The forums aren't as noob friendly as, say Mepis', but I found the people there to be really great if you showed a sincere desire to learn the nuts and bolts of linux (as opposed to just demanding someone write a GUI for what you wanted to do).

Finally (???), there's also Linux From Scratch, but I always assumed that was more of a learning tool at the expense of usability out of the box -- though many people can, and do use their LFS system on a daily basis.

lol i would fully agree with the cheating part for debain because i noticed they had a lot of packages that i could easily get using apt-get.

I thought LFS was tough. better to stick to a running linux distro before i move on to something like LFS if i do have the time to indulge. kinda hard since my work hours just got increased XP

anyway, does anyone know anything about ultima linux and how it is like? is it anywhere comparable to the other distros? (i'd like to hear about its drawbacks other than its lesser community support compared to ubuntu..)

Great synopsis!
 

I think you are right on with your comments. If the goal is to learn, then cannot go wrong with either Debian or Slackware. Neither are beyond anyone who is willing to invest some time and effort to learn.

For those who want to actually try and use the systems to see what they are like and then learn as they go, that's where many of the derived distributions come in handy. The MEPIS distributions are ideal for coming up with a really useful desktop system to actually use, even before you truly understand what it is doing. The Ubuntu varieties are more examples of getting software in place before you really understand how they work. For those who want to go that route, it may be better to get on line, try stuff out for a while, then attempt to understand what it does.

The Arch Linux, Linux From Scratch (LFS), Gentoo Linux, and other efforts that are similar in character, are really good for digging in when you are ready to get your hands dirty and build what you want, based on what you understand. They are great for that. As you note, the disadvantage to these systems is that there is significant investment to be made in order to achieve a satisfactory result. The benefit is that you get precisely what you put into each of them.

For me, I understand how software works and at least at a general level how to put the components together. I find comparatively little payback in flexibility and performance, at least for me, in using source based distributions like LPS, Saybayan or Gentoo Linux. I find a good Debian system sufficiently well optimzed for my needs - and if it ever isn't, the Debian systems ALWAYS have deb-src that I can take and compile or recompile to my heart's content. I have done it a few times just to see how much efficiency can be gained, and I can tell you, any gains are modest. Unless learning is the objective, Slackware and Debian are quite reasonably optimized, stable, and effective as either desktop or server systems.

Over the past few days I have installed XBUNTU, Mint, Ubuntu and PC Linux. I have also tried to install gebuntu without any success causing the screen to go fuzzy much like the symptomps of a faulty graphic card.

I started with ubuntu expecting it to have everthing I need package wise. I just wanted to see how slow it will run on my Pentium III box.

I then installed the Xbuntu to check the difference and was surprised to see not a hell of a lot of difference. But then I did't do to much more than starting and closing firefox.

I wonder if you could provide further advise. As mentioned earlier I am not too impressed with desktop aesthetics of xbununtu or ubuntu. After having installed and run both I don't see the performance difference between Xbuntu and ubuntu. At the moment the windows 2000 I have on my laptop beats all of them for speed on a similar P III laptop.

This was when I tried gebunutu seeing the reviews regarding easthetics and performance. As mentione it screwed with my graphics and for a while I thought this was going to be permenant damage.

Then I installed PC Linux MiniMe. I found this distro bar far the most easthetically pleasing and cleverly laid out. It's just too bad this distro is not as well supported as the ubuntu family.

I am wondering if I could tweak xbuntu to customize and make it as pleasing as PC Linux.

I am using an old Dell Inspiron Pentium III 800 MHz with 512 mb ram, 120 gig hard drive. Soon I will add 128 mb pci graphics.

Would you say I should stay with xbuntu learn enough for further experimentation on unsupported but better laid distros.?

If anyone knows of any comprehensive online courses based on PC Linux, I would grateful.


I really appreciate your suggestions.

The only difference between Ubuntu, Xubuntu and Kubuntu is the Desktop Environment. Everything else is the same. You can even have all three desktops on the one installation and switch between them.

At the end of the day, Linux is Linux is Linux. Once you've spent a couple of months with one distro, you'll know how to use most of them, because they're all made from the same ingredients. The biggest differences are in the packaging tools. Most of the other differences are cosmetic.

Well, I just feel I need some hand holding for those first few months. Hence the idea of selecting a distro with lots of support. So initially I have been looking SUSE, ubuntu and redhat.

Packages are important. I.e. support for full range of multimedia codecs etc. I notice even ubuntu is not able to run my avi movies.


Have you heard of geOs. Can you review?

Not true. It plays avi just fine. Install mplayer, vlc and the xine-libs, the gstreamer-plugins and win32codecs.

which distro should i get
 

hello,

i have got a new toshiba laptop the spec's are:

2gb of RAM
120gb Harddrive (i dont want to use over 8gb for os)
1mb cashe
CD/DVD


i also use wireless and my wireless card is:

Realtek RTL8187B Wireless 802.11b/g 54Mbps USB 2.0 Network Adapter

i have had previusly used ubuntu, suse and mandriva on a desktop

It depends NOT on your HW, but on your requirements! For what purpose are you gonna use it?

I enjoy using Fedora... i'm not sure if you'll get much out of it with just an 8gb partition, so you should probably use something a little more light weight.

But, as deep has said, it depends on what you want to use it for.

i need the oporating system and other software to go on 8gb files and music and films and things i dont mind because i can put them on my windows partion. i just need to get my os and software on the 8gb or someare around there i dont mind if its a little over.

and i wish to use it for every day use as well as building websites, connection to networks and computers. i wish to do lots of things i am also going to be building some software using C++ in about a year so i would like something that would work with that so i dont have to change what my os or mess things around when i come to do it.

thanks

I think 8GB would be fine, as long as, like you say, you can store and retrieve files from your windows partition or external media, especially those big movie files.

Any of the distributions you named will be fine. I like Ubuntu because you install it once, and it prompts you to do all the subsequent upgrades over the internet. Ubuntu, and any of the Debian-based distros are nice simply because of all the packages available.

Is it from the Satellite a215 series? Those laptops are nice, but they are all ATI. You'll have to tweak your sound, wireless and graphics with any distro. But it can be made to work, just somewhat nontrivial.
Distribution doesn't matter much, but get something fresh.

Well, according your needs, the OSs that are best suited are:

1. openSUSE 10.3
2. Fedora 8
3. Debian etch

Jessica - I have moved your thread to the main megathread - http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...thread-589935/

Because this is a pretty general question you should find many ideas and opinions there.

Other people's experiences may be different but I do not recommend openSuse 10.3. I have given it three tries so far and each time I dumped it within an hour. Has anyone been able to install gstreamer-ffmpeg yet? I couldn't - with about a million repositories added - and the result was that quite a few other applications failed to install too because they depend on it (and it's one of the most important if you want to play as many types of video as possible). Maybe I'm just biased because I was never pleased with earlier versions either but I guess that says enough its own right.
Mandriva is great but it tends to start disintegrating if you use a lot of third-party repositories.
PCLinuxOS is a Mandriva derivative that is more stable but it lacks the large software repositories and its upgrade path is unclear.
Gentoo is great but installation and updating are something of a chore.
CentOS is very stable but tends to lag in terms of hardware support.
My suggestion would be Ubuntu (somewhat easier), Debian (stabler) or Fedora (more cutting edge but with the same annoyingly short support cycles as Ubuntu). Maybe Slackware.

It's not cheating, it's common sense. Pssh, who actually wants to compile sofware these days? ;) :D

looking for a suitable distro for an old Pentium II (350 MHz, 128 MB RAM) desktop
 

I have set my sights on finding a functioning OS, but lots of questions remain. The old box is a PII 350 MHz with 128MB RAM and a 3.9GB hard drive, so I obviously won't be shooting for the moon. Still, I'd prefer more than utter minimalism. The primary needs for the distro are:
1. Internet, e-mail, the ability to use multimedia incl. WMP media files, Adobe Flash, Java without too many compatibility issues
2. a decent office suite like OpenOffice (have it installed on the machine, quite a memory hog but otherwise fine)
3. photo apps like GIMP (familiar with it) and perhaps something lighter memorywise
4. USB compatibility (USB drive, digital camera)

Other important factors include: security and stability; hassle-free installation and use; plentiful support available when I (inevitably) bump into the proverbial brick wall.

Here's a list of alternatives I've been considering after my initial research (not in any particular order):
VectorLinux: should fit the hardware profile, but is it good for my needs?
Mandriva: would be interesting, but apparently too heavy for my machine.
Fedora: same as Mandriva, so should I scratch it off my list?
PCLinuxOS: would this be ideal for my needs?
SAM: should be small enough, but does it lack in other aspects (apps, stability, etc.)?
Slackware: small and supposedly fitting, but ease of use and installation? I can't pick a distro that requires extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the whole thing.
Debian: could it be installed with a lighter version (e.g. xfce and a smaller selection of apps) to fit the hardware profile?
KNOPPIX: possible to try it out, but will it function well enough in the long term on my kind of machine?
MEPIS: presumably falls into the category of possible matches, but still uncertain.
Ubuntu/Xubuntu/Fluxbuntu: Ubuntu probably too demanding, but would either of the lighter distros fill my needs? Support shouldn't be an issue, I gather.
Pioneer: one more possibility to take into account.

Now, I took that test at zegeniestudios.net, and it recommended OpenSuSE as a "perfect" match for me. Mandriva, Ubuntu/Kubuntu and Freespire were deemed too heavy for my PII while Fedora apparently required too much knowledge of Linux. Other distros weren't mentioned as possibilities.

I'd like to know if I'm buzzing anywhere near the right track, or if I need to reorient myself completely. I have no interest in forking out for a new computer to enable this change, but I can/will settle for less memory-intense apps/distros just so I can find a system that gives me more than an endless array of aggravation. Informative advice would be appreciated.

Anything that uses XFCE should be fine. Distributions that use KDE or Gnome will be too demanding. XFCE can be installed on any distro to replace the default desktop environment but why take the trouble if you can get something that already has XFCE?
Xubuntu comes to mind, there is also a Debian XFCE install cd, Slackware should be fine but you'd need to read the manual first, Vector is another option but I believe that it is only partly free.

I am a newbie just like yourself and can only tell you my journey. I also use an old P III coopermine 800 Mhz with 512 ram.

Having the ultimate aim of becoming an exert, I started by challenging myself with Slackware but soon realized you really need a degree in computer science and be unemployed to do it. Being an extremely busy person and seeing no one on this or slackware's official site were prepared to help with quick questions I shelved the idea for in favor of Mandriva. There are many learning styles not every one learns as a book worm...

I was surprised that unlike the reviews here Mandriva performed reasonably fast on my machine. However, I did come across a lot of ubs issues, specifically it did not recognize my external devices connected to my usb hub. Any device connected directly worked even though typing "mseg" showed a functioning hub.

I posted a question on the mandriva forum and was flabbergasted to be criticized for having that many external devices in the first place, even though Linux is meant to compete with windows and it worked fine on win2k. I have an external cd burner, hdd, cell phone, skype headset and mouse...in the process my mouse gave up the ghost due to so much hot swapping.

I then decided to try PC Linux OS. Man, am I impressed with this OS. It's got everything. It recognized my usb and all devices plugged into it, including my cell phone using usb. It is so well layed out aesthetically too. It has all the multimedia, office, internet applications you could ever want and is reasonably fast.

The relatively minor problems are

Sometimes when I boot the usb mouse does not load properly. I.e. the mouse is jumpy or slow. So, I have to reboot or some times end a session and it sorts the problem.

Thus far no-one here has given me a satisfactory answer about this issue.

The only other is samba. My PC Linux machine can see my windows machine but not the other way round. I guess this is not a fault but more my ignorance on how to configure samba. But as per my other questions I have not received any concrete answers on forums.

So I am going to have to wait and enroll on a course during my summer break when I have more time.

I would say I could persuade my granny to use PC Linux it is that user friendly. But communities have to become more generous before there is a mass update to kick out microsoft.

Wait, Wait, Wait, first off, no one said slackware was a newbie friendly distro. Second off, You do not need a CS degree to do it, you just need to have common sense, and be able to use google.

Who said Linux was meant to compete windows?, it was meant as a unix-like os designed to run on the i386 arch.
I don't understand how the communities aren't generous, considering we are all volunteers on our free time, I would say even answering a small percentage of the questions would be generous

I'll put my :twocents: in. I have a computer that is 350 MHz and 64 MB of memory. I've successfully run Puppy w/ XFCE on it and it's pretty snappy. Also, I've run Slackware 11 on it, using XFCE and Enlightenment 16 - it wasn't bad at all. I would not expect cutting edge performance, but you will get your work done. Email, Internet, word processing, graphics *somewhat* and a game or three. Not bad.

Does really well sharing a dial up connection too. . .

I understand the limitations of the PII at my disposal, but in general, I was wondering if any of those popular, well-supported distros (e.g. Mandriva, Debian, Ubuntu/Xubuntu) or their derivatives could be installed in lighter versions (better suited for my meager 128MB RAM).

To polarbear20000: Xfce looks just fine, but I didn't like the appearance of puppy when viewing its screenshots; it's probably not the primary concern, I know, but not entirely insignificant either.

AFA siawash's suggestion of PCLinuxOS, yes, it might have been good if not for the memory issue (I read it in a review on this site it needs 256MB RAM for the live CD to work :().

I've been trying to check the general hardware requirements on all the distros of interest to me, but they're not always so clearly defined, thus complicating my task. You might suggest I try them out, but I'd rather narrow down the list first. Since the HD is also pathetically small, I'll probably opt out of dual booting altogether. Why keep an error-spouting enfant terrible hogging the precious space better utilized otherwise?

Anyway, I'll take wing again and look for the ideal landing place. Everyone running distros on old boxes are welcome to cast their two cents here as well. Thanks.

With 128 MB RAM the question is not really that much of "which distribution", but "which window manager". Very beginner-friendly distributions like *ubuntus won't let you decide which WM or desktop environment you install (except, with Ubuntu, choosing a different ubuntu flavor). But, with Debian as an example, you can cross the option "install desktop environment" during the installation, which would install Gnome, or leave it out, so that the installation has no desktop environment at all. After that you can do a simple "apt-get install fluxbox" and get Fluxbox, an example of a lightweight WM that will have no problems with 128 MB RAM. (After that it only comes down to what applications you run _in_ the WM.) The less positive thing about lightweight window managers is that they tend to have no graphical way to configure them, which in practice leads to a) flexibility and b) having to read the documentation to be able to use the WM. Which really isn't as bad as it may sound.

Anyway, my suggestion is simply to take a distribution with lightweight window managers in the repository, install the initial system without a WM and then throw one in by hand (such distributions would be e.g. Debian or Arch Linux). The text only installation of basically any available distribution will require much less than 128 MB, and the smallest window managers won't add much to that at all.

If you're planning on doing anything remotely ambitious with older hardware, it's important to get every bit of optimization out of the equipment you have. You can start with something like Ubuntu or Mandriva and then pare away all the stuff you don't want or your computer can't use, but sometimes the effort doesn't seem to pay off.

With older hardware, I've either opted for a Slackware or Debian derivative that targets older hardware and uses a "lighter" window manager (Zenwalk or AntiX, for example), or started with Debian/Slackware/Arch/Gentoo and then built my system up from the command line with just the stuff I want.

If you're a less experienced user, I'd go with the Slackware/Debian derivatives first. Those source distros tend to be pretty quick and the the better derivatives do a good job of configuring your system out of the box. I personally have used and like Zenwalk (XFCE - Slackware), AntiX (Fluxbox - Mepis/Debian), and TinyME (PCLOS).

BUT, with the help of a good installation guide and enough patience, there's no reason why you couldn't run Debian or Slackware proper.

Chris

I'm only in the first stages of learning the Linux ropes, so I wouldn't try to mess with the system on my own :tisk:. Even so, I will (as necessitated by the hardware) try the different apps available out to the extent that I find the most suitable components. On one hand, I'm willing to roam around, while on the other hand, I'd happily install a distro with a decent array of apps for my liking (as described in my first post) and not have to worry about the details.

Right now, I'm leaning toward Xubuntu. We'll see how that will fly.

I once installed Xubuntu on a P400 MHz with 256 MB RAM and was surprised how slow it was. Booting up took several minutes, launching a console maybe around 15 seconds. I don't know if it was only Xfce that was so slow or the rest of the Xubuntu installation, but I think it was all the stuff that is loaded automatically on startup on *ubuntu systems. As they're very beginner oriented distributions, they tend to start all daemons and applications that someone could possibly need on the background, much one-size-fits-all style, and I think that's what made the system run so slow. (Probably that's also why they started the Fluxbuntu project in order to have an even leaner Ubuntu.)

Ubuntus are great distributions and they make everything rather easy for beginners (maybe even too easy), and you can try Xubuntu and see how it works for you, but having a backup plan might also be a good idea. (Something like Damn Small Linux, Puppy Linux, VectorLinux...)

Xubuntu I've read loads a lot of GTK libraries, which make it slower than a bare bones xfce install. On a PIII 733 MHz with 160mb ram, I actually found Xubuntu and Ubuntu to be very similar in speed (and both were very quick). I'd try out Xubuntu on a PII, but I'd run a speed comparison with something like Damn Small to see what kind of speed that thing could really put out. You may find Xubuntu to be much slower.

The fastest responding combination I have on that PIII is Arch with Windowmaker. If you're willing to put in a little more time, using a distro that installs a base system, and adding your own lightweight components and window manager will be really worthwhile.

Actually, if one wants to load Ubuntu onto an older PC, I would recommend getting the server edition and picking & choosing the packages you want. That way, one has control on what gets installed on their PC.