Jump to content

Ubuntu Is incredible!

MacOS9fan

By MacOS9fan
in Computing Discussion

Recommended Posts

Boog

Boog

Posted
Posted

I personal prefer Fedora 7. And if I get in the mood for snaz, I just enable Beryl. Ubuntu is nice to start out your linux venture. But if you are looking to replace Windows, I'd go with a more stable, popular ditro, like Fedora. Fedora being based off RedHat, there are many free and commercial applications that work flawlessly. My biggest problem with Ubuntu is having to install every depency at installation of an application. Fedora auto installs the most needed dependencies.

Link to comment
Ojalord

Ojalord

Posted
Posted

Of all the Linux distros I've used, the most user-friendly were SuSE, PCLinuxOS, and Mandrake/Mandriva. Ubuntu comes a bit after all these. Then you have Debian, Fedora Core, and Red Hat among the least friendly. And, by user I mean a typically noobish, desktop user. This is, of course, my personal rating...:)

Link to comment
Boog

Boog

Posted
Posted

I love Mandrake 10.1 I hate what the new team "Mandriva" did to Mandrake. SuSE is great for people who's used Windows all their life. SuSE also has a nice feature called Click N' Install. Just click an application from the many on the site and it auto installs them. Lindows.Linspire also has a feature like this.

Link to comment
hammergom

hammergom

Posted
Posted

If you really and I mean really want to use and learn Linux give Slackware a go.

Slackware was my favorite distro mainly because unlike all the rest you really had to learn Linux to

install and use it. It was and is the most Unix like distro. There is no bloat preinstalled. You install

and configure nearly everything, including X windows. The documentation is fantastic and so are

the forums, but no one is going to hold your hand. You can however make it anything you

want it to be. The main reason that I use Fedora now is because it was the only Linux distro that

supported my existing Raid 0 array. Having said that and trying out Ubuntu, Mepis, and others, I'm

sold on Fedora big time now. Mainly because, I can make into anything that I want it to be. Fedora

is the cutting edge. Besides if Fedora doesn't have something that I want, it's simply a matter of

downloading the source, then ./configure, make, and su -c make install.

I'm just glad to see all the new interest in Linux. The point being, use the version of Linux that you

like the best and please share any Aqua and or Mac customizations for Linux here at Aqua Soft.

Happy non Microsoft computing to you all,

HaMMeR=GoM=

Link to comment
alpha2zulu

alpha2zulu

Posted
Posted

hammergom, if you were trying to be nice to people's eyes with the double-spacing, it didn't really work. I read about half your post before I gave up from losing my place.

Anyway, Ubuntu is a nice OS. I wanted it so badly to be my default back when Dapper came out, but I couldn't get my wi-fi working (it's a laptop). Everything else worked perfectly with some minor configuration, but trying to set up my wireless card pulled me away from Linux :(

Link to comment
dpsleep

dpsleep

Posted
Posted
it boots slow because your computers slow, or you have to many programes starting at boot.. M$'s the number one operating system in the world for a reason; its not buggy, running a bunch of un-certifyed windows apps tends to bug up your computer though. Agreed Ubuntu and the linux family's very nice, but it will be years untill it amount to M$ or Apple (currently). Also beryl's so much fun if your bored:P

I wish ubuntu was able to read alot more and have more plug and play capabilities...

coldwerturkey-

sorry but i just have to correct you on this, Microsoft is "#1" because it got there first, thats it.

Having allot of things running at startup on any system will make the boot time slower. and weather or not it's certified by Microsoft makes no difference except one has a sticker. the difference is in the developer, how well they optimize there code, what they are writing it in, bug hunting, etc.

windows, believe it or not, is very, very buggy. ever heard of the BSOD? Linux is way more stable than windows in almost every way. but its not perfect, theres always kernel panics, but they will happen allot less then BSOD's. if i had to pull a ratio out of my ass, i would say 100 to 1.

When it comes to plug and play, its true that Linux isn't that great. the only reason for this is everything has been made for windows, so unless a developer owns the same hardware as you and has written drivers for it, or just enabled it to be recognized upon plugin, your sore outta luck. but Linux still has better hardware support than windows last time i checked. oh, and Linux has already surpassed windows. look at vista, thats the crappiest piece of software i would ever expect to come out of M$. I tried it out to see what was up and it didn't support about 70% of my hardware, but Linux did without configuration.

i mean, if you had to setup a server would you a.)setup a windows box with iis or b.) setup a Linux box with apache? B of course, unless you want to have a site with an uptime of 50%.

MacOS9fan-

as far as picking a distro, its all about what you want to do, what kind of hardware you got and your level of understanding of the operating system.

check out this site http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/

as for your camera, ill bet you can get it working, without much effort, just use Google to find a fix, if that doesn't work, go to the forums and ask the people who know the in's and out's of Linux help you. I've gotten better support for free off a forum then i ever payed for from M$.

everyone-

if your gonna ***** about how hard Linux is to use, then don't use it, its obviously not for you. i enjoy working on computers and making them do what i want. to put it blunt (and in the form of a vw commercial) on the road, there are passengers and there are drivers, one knows how to use the car, how it works, etc. the other is just along for the ride.

sorry for ranting, i don't mean to be rude, i just can stand seeing these myths be spread around the net.

Link to comment
davidsword

davidsword

Posted
Posted
look at vista, thats the crappiest piece of software i would ever expect to come out of M$. I tried it out to see what was up and it didn't support about 70% of my hardware, but Linux did without configuration

If 70% of your hardware isn't detected by a high end os, than sorry man your hardware sucks, and probably runs flawless in a low resources os (linux)... The BSOD was said to be eliminated in windows6.0 (Poll on AS). At least give vista a chance (on a computer running more than "30%" of your hardware, which I find hard to believe is possible, but you never know).

Linux is great.. no doubt about it, its not very noob friendly which is a shame.. I'd personally move if Adobe products ran on it, (if they already do and my heads to deep in the sand than I rephrase: if Adobe products ran and installed easily).

Out of curiosity dpsleep what OS are you currently running?

Link to comment
Ojalord

Ojalord

Posted
Posted
coldwerturkey-

sorry but i just have to correct you on this, Microsoft is "#1" because it got there first, thats it.

Getting somewhere first is no guarantee to staying there forever undisturbed. Microsoft may have got a headstart but that doesn't mean that it should be denied the credit due to it.

coldwerturkey-

Having allot of things running at startup on any system will make the boot time slower. and weather or not it's certified by Microsoft makes no difference except one has a sticker. the difference is in the developer, how well they optimize there code, what they are writing it in, bug hunting, etc.

I agree with you there, :)

coldwerturkey-

windows, believe it or not, is very, very buggy. ever heard of the BSOD? Linux is way more stable than windows in almost every way. but its not perfect, theres always kernel panics, but they will happen allot less then BSOD's. if i had to pull a ratio out of my ass, i would say 100 to 1.

I run a dual boot system with Windows XP x64 and PCLinuxOS. And I experience more errors/crashes on Linux than on Windows. I installed both roughly 2-3 months ago, and on Linux I get errors/crashes on an average of one every 3-4 days (the main culprits being graphics drivers and Beryl). I have yet to get a BSOD from XP. In view of these stats, I would therefore caution you from using your ass as a repository for ratios.

coldwerturkey-

When it comes to plug and play, its true that Linux isn't that great. the only reason for this is everything has been made for windows, so unless a developer owns the same hardware as you and has written drivers for it, or just enabled it to be recognized upon plugin, your sore outta luck. but Linux still has better hardware support than windows last time i checked. oh, and Linux has already surpassed windows. look at vista, thats the crappiest piece of software i would ever expect to come out of M$. I tried it out to see what was up and it didn't support about 70% of my hardware, but Linux did without configuration.

I agree with the reason Linux doesn't have better plug-and play support than Windows. But then, saying outright that it has better hardware support than windows is wrong. All the hardware supported on linux is but a subset of that supported by windows. And to base your claims on Vista only says that your hardware is obsolete, as Coldwerturkey has pointed out.

Linux is great.. no doubt about it, its not very noob friendly which is a shame.

The newer versions of most major distros of Linux (SuSE, PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu, etc) are as, if not more, noob friendly than Windows, in my opinion.

Link to comment
dpsleep

dpsleep

Posted
Posted
If 70% of your hardware isn't detected by a high end os, than sorry man your hardware sucks, and probably runs flawless in a low resources os (linux)... The BSOD was said to be eliminated in windows6.0 (Poll on AS). At least give vista a chance (on a computer running more than "30%" of your hardware, which I find hard to believe is possible, but you never know).

its not that it isn't detected, windows can tell me what my hardware is, no unknowns, they just don't have the drivers for it. and my hardware is not old, its not new, but its definitely not old. it does run almost (there are times...) flawlessly on linux, but not because it is low on resources (far more optimized then windows), but because they have the drivers to back it up. and there isnt some silly, "hey i detected some new hardware" dialog, it just works, no installing drivers, no restarting, just works. i mean, it works perfectly on all my older computers that vista cant do anything with. old hardware isn't something that should just be dumped, support for old hardware should always be there.

as far as the bsod being eliminated in windows 6.0? you have to be kidding, the bsod still occurs in vista. i did give vista a chance, and it was nothing i want to go back to, for my windows machine i still use xp, at least i have most my hardware working. when i say about 30% i mean basic video output (no hardware acceleration drivers...), mouse, keyboard, dvdrw+- drive, and my ide (but not my sata) hard drive. what wasn't working was my wacom tablet pen, my tv tuner card, my sound card, usb, bluetooth, my video card (no drivers) 500gb sata drive, and amd cool and quiet (the fans spin at full speed at all times). so maybe its more like 50/50, but that still sucks for a mainstream os.

Getting somewhere first is no guarantee to staying there forever undisturbed. Microsoft may have got a headstart but that doesn't mean that it should be denied the credit due to it.

im not saying that it didn't have a great start, just that they got there first and got all the support and backing from the big corps. they were brilliant men, well most of them, and they revolutionized the pc industry, but the only reason they got there is because they made something everyone needed, but didn't know they needed, until they had it. they get the points for a great idea, but the end product we see today is not what it should be. they innovated to get their front row seat (if you call ripping off the gui that apple riped off of xerox innovating), but since then have been napping on a huge pile of cash. no more innovation, just people buying what crap they put out because it became a standard. I'm also not trying to say there isn't any innovation peaking through Microsoft's "windows", but for a company that is suppose to be the industry standard, there not doing very well.

I run a dual boot system with Windows XP x64 and PCLinuxOS. And I experience more errors/crashes on Linux than on Windows. I installed both roughly 2-3 months ago, and on Linux I get errors/crashes on an average of one every 3-4 days (the main culprits being graphics drivers and Beryl). I have yet to get a BSOD from XP. In view of these stats, I would therefore caution you from using your ass as a repository for ratios.

well thats the thing isn't it, when you use experimental beta drivers, bugs are sure to pop out, but is that Linux's fault? no. congrats on never having a bsod on xp. thats always good. but don't criticize my ass dwelling ratios when your comparing beta code to a stable release. what i meant by windows being buggy and Linux being stable is that, well for example ill use the up-time Linux nerds love to brag about. if you leave a windows system running for oh, a week, regularly using it, it will slow down, allot. what do you do? restart. while you could leave you Linux system on for a month strait, regularly, and notice almost nothing slowing down.

I agree with the reason Linux doesn't have better plug-and play support than Windows. But then, saying outright that it has better hardware support than windows is wrong. All the hardware supported on linux is but a subset of that supported by windows. And to base your claims on Vista only says that your hardware is obsolete, as Coldwerturkey has pointed out.

wow, hold on there buddy. i never said Linux doesn't have better plug and play than windows. i just said its not that great. and even then i mean things like video cards, where its all closed off, and the company doesn't release very good, if any at all drivers for Linux. then they have to hack together some drivers for said video card. and whats this statement of "All the hardware supported on Linux is but a subset of that supported by windows." this is not true. not all Linux drivers are based off their windows counterparts. in fact there is a minority of hardware made for Linux. and just because a piece of hardwares original functionality was meant for windows, doesn't mean Linux cant have drivers that are as good as or even better than those on windows. this goes back to the fact that it depends on the programmer, and the documentation of the device. this also shows how Microsoft has a hold on the computer industry. they have the hardware support because company's give it to them, if they were to open up there drivers documentation, then Linux would in turn have better support. but since Linux is mostly non-profit, and free to download, its hard to pay off hardware manufacturers to close their hardware to your os.

now this sentence, "And to base your claims on Vista only says that your hardware is obsolete" just makes me laugh. your saying that a newer os cant function on older hardware because that hardware is "obsolete", and thats just stupid. Microsoft had the functionality before, but now its gone, where did it go? down the drain. they decided that they didn't want to update there old drivers for the new operating system. yea, something Linux has been doing since creation, with people working in their spare time, for free. and btw my hardware is not obsolete,

AMD Athlon Socket 939 64 Processor 3000+

NVIDIA G70 [GeForce 7800 GS]

ASUS Socket 939 A8V Deluxe

The newer versions of most major distros of Linux (SuSE, PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu, etc) are as, if not more, noob friendly than Windows, in my opinion.

well sure they are opening up to new users who just want a working computer, but windows is a baby's rattle compared to the complexity of Linux. meaning they cant hold your hand through everything, and you can really easily mess up your system. your gonna have to learn something about terminal sooner or later and some people don't want to have to do that. windows is still more home user friendly, and Linux is catching up, but it is still a ways off, and to promise someone an easy point click experience with Linux would be dishonest. i agree installing Linux is getting easier, with live cd's and such. but the learning curve is still in windows favor.

and coldwerturkey: I'm currently on a Ubuntu Linux box, not that i don't use other distro's, but Ubuntu is my favorite. Mostly for the fact that its based off Debian.

Link to comment
Boog

Boog

Posted
Posted

Microsoft is #1? Microsoft was here first? Whoa! NO! Unix was here first pal. Unix developed in 1969 as where Windows based on DOS was developed in,um, Mid 1980's. Almost 20 years later. Unix was the inspiration for Linux. Evan back then Unix was more powerfull then any other system. It just wasn't afordable for individuals. Linux was releaed to the public for FREE in 1991, only 1 year after the first SUCESSFULL release of Windows, version 3.0 It took microsoft 2 more years to release the next verstio, 3.1 where linux had already had 100's of distro's and additional FREE software readily available for the public sector.

But WAIT!. Listen to this. Apple Inc. has thier first computer marketed in 1976-77! So the goes the #2 slot for Windows.

So far it's, Unix in #1, Apple Inc., Linux, and the MAYBE Microsoft.

Why maybe? Because you can't forget about Suns SPARC. Not only in 1995 did they release a sparc spu, but a sparc OS. And they even offered a 64 bit version of it to the public.

So Microsoft in the middle of being 3 or 4 But NOT #1.

Microsoft only seems to be #1. But think about it. more then 90% of the servers ran are using Unix/Linux. Linux offers 1000's more features then a Microsoft server, it's best part of all, Linux is FREE. Most cable/sattelite companies use linux on their boxes. So the next time you change the channel on your tv, chances are it's linux.

Link to comment
Ojalord

Ojalord

Posted
Posted
well thats the thing isn't it, when you use experimental beta drivers, bugs are sure to pop out, but is that Linux's fault? no. congrats on never having a bsod on xp. thats always good. but don't criticize my ass dwelling ratios when your comparing beta code to a stable release. what i meant by windows being buggy and Linux being stable is that, well for example ill use the up-time Linux nerds love to brag about. if you leave a windows system running for oh, a week, regularly using it, it will slow down, allot. what do you do? restart. while you could leave you Linux system on for a month strait, regularly, and notice almost nothing slowing down.

I use experimental beta drivers for my Nvidia MX4000 card on XP x64 too. That warrants a fair comparison, imo. And I've seen uptimes of a week on more on Windows-based computers too. Nothing really great about that.

wow, hold on there buddy. i never said Linux doesn't have better plug and play than windows. i just said its not that great. and even then i mean things like video cards, where its all closed off, and the company doesn't release very good, if any at all drivers for Linux. then they have to hack together some drivers for said video card. and whats this statement of "All the hardware supported on Linux is but a subset of that supported by windows." this is not true. not all Linux drivers are based off their windows counterparts. in fact there is a minority of hardware made for Linux. and just because a piece of hardwares original functionality was meant for windows, doesn't mean Linux cant have drivers that are as good as or even better than those on windows. this goes back to the fact that it depends on the programmer, and the documentation of the device. this also shows how Microsoft has a hold on the computer industry. they have the hardware support because company's give it to them, if they were to open up there drivers documentation, then Linux would in turn have better support. but since Linux is mostly non-profit, and free to download, its hard to pay off hardware manufacturers to close their hardware to your os.

By that statement ("hardware..subset..blah..") I didn't mean that Linux drivers are based off their window s counterparts. I meant that I've never seen any hardware that is aimed specifically and exclusively at Linux machines, though there does exist hardware that works only on windows. Hence my statement that linux-compatible hardware is but a subset of all hardware (there might be some exceptions I don't know of, please inform me in such a case). Thus, I never remarked on the quality of Linux drivers. Those may or may not be better than their Windows counterparts, depending on the specific hardware they are meant for and their creators.

now this sentence, "And to base your claims on Vista only says that your hardware is obsolete" just makes me laugh. your saying that a newer os cant function on older hardware because that hardware is "obsolete", and thats just stupid. Microsoft had the functionality before, but now its gone, where did it go? down the drain. they decided that they didn't want to update there old drivers for the new operating system. yea, something Linux has been doing since creation, with people working in their spare time, for free. and btw my hardware is not obsolete,

AMD Athlon Socket 939 64 Processor 3000+

NVIDIA G70 [GeForce 7800 GS]

ASUS Socket 939 A8V Deluxe

Vista is based on an entirely different framework than it's predecessors. It's almost a wholly different OS than XP and entirely different from 9x. Therefore, it's not wrong to assume that it's not mandatory for even quite recent hardware products to be compatible with it. And the responsibility of providing newer drivers lies with the manufacturer, not Microsoft. I called your hardware obsolete relative to Vista. It may, of course, work with other OS's. By the way, I share your processor and motherboard model; and I have an even crappier graphics card. And I pretty much consider it obsolete, I got it more than one-and-a-half years ago. That's a long time in IT.

I am not trying to start a fight here. In fact, I agree largely with a lot of what you've said. I just want to make myself clear. :)

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
Xer

Xer

Posted
Posted

I would have to agree, even I don't like linux so much, Ubuntu is great and I love it!

But can't use it... still stuck with my Counter Strike and other games :S

And I love Adobe's software I won't replace it for nothing in the world.

And also linux doesn't have a music producing software such as Cubase SX and Reason so.. I guess i'm gonna have to attach to my M$ 'till I get me a cute little BIG mac :D

Link to comment
metallicamaster3

metallicamaster3

Posted
Posted

Why the hell haven't I posted in this thread before?!

I would have to list Ubuntu #1 on my list. Why? Because its the first Linux I used, back in the Hoary days, and I still use it today.

Its easy to find your way around, and its a great mix of an introduction to Linux and user-friendlyness.

I still use it because I know my way around and back again with it. There simply isn't a feat I can't accomplish in this OS.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...