Linux

pup · Jan 29, 2009, 00:00:37

I have probably asked this before

, but what version of Linux is recommended for a novice?

Also what is WINE and Virtual Box? (VM?), whats the difference?

Steve · Jan 29, 2009, 07:55:15

I started with Ubuntu(not progressed any further

)WINE is a linux program that allows you to execute a windows program on a linux platform. Virtual box is Virtual Machine software which when installed allows you to run another OS on top of another one, useful as it avoids having dual boot, separate partitions etc but there is a delay as you have to start the primary OS before you can boot the second and the machine must have sufficient resources.

JB · Jan 29, 2009, 09:34:42

As Steve has said, Ubuntu is widely regarded as being a good start. It is a fairly familiar environment if coming from Windows and manages to install on most recent machines without too many problems.

Another way to play with Linux is something like Puppy Linux, which was discussed in another thread on Idnetters. It is a small download and you can boot from CD and play with a live system without making any changes to your hard drive. In that way you can get a feel for it remembering that it is quite cut down and doesn't have all the programs that something like Ubuntu would have.

Steve · Jan 29, 2009, 09:45:44

There is also wubi which runs Ubuntu from within windows,installs (and can be removed) like any other piece of windows software.Its only slightly slower than a separate install on my machine

kinmel · Jan 29, 2009, 09:47:14

Start with a look at Ubuntu and if that works for you then try another version of Linux too.

New Ubuntu users should start with the official Beginners Guide

Good luck.

Sebby · Jan 29, 2009, 12:46:33

Another vote for Ubuntu here.

Simon · Jan 29, 2009, 12:51:14

I also started with Ubuntu, but went no further. There's a very helpful Ubuntu forum, who, like us, don't treat newbies as numpties.

davej99 · Jan 29, 2009, 15:56:15

I have no knowledge or experience of Linux whatever. Following Kinmel's link for Ubuntu beginners, I downloaded the LiveCD image, burnt it and booted to run from the CD as a trial. This boot apparently does not write to the hard drive at all. Even running from the CD, response seems crisp, though I do have 2G of memory. Amazingly, within a minute or so, here I am browsing IDNET in Firefox through my usual router without doing a thing, except zooming text size. Frankly that is impressive. So for fellow newbies, I would say it is well worth a try.

davej99 · Jan 29, 2009, 15:56:24

Deleted - posted twice.

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 15:59:08

Though apparently it causes double posting.

davej99 · Jan 29, 2009, 16:01:03

I was dazzled by the speed!

Rik · Jan 29, 2009, 16:02:12

Sebby · Jan 29, 2009, 16:41:37

Simon · Jan 29, 2009, 18:24:19

kinmel · Jan 29, 2009, 19:29:37

Quote from: davej99 on Jan 29, 2009, 15:56:15
Amazingly, within a minute or so, here I am browsing IDNET in Firefox through my usual router without doing a thing, except zooming text size. Frankly that is impressive. So for fellow newbies, I would say it is well worth a try.

And there is no magic involved

pup · Jan 29, 2009, 19:48:50

Ubuntu it is then. Ive already got an install disk for that. its going on my laptop ill try it now....

trophymick · Jan 29, 2009, 20:44:14

I tried Ubuntu for a short period and liked it a lot, it flies

Only problem was, I have Garmin Mapsource on my computer (for those that don't know, it's a GPS mapping/routing programme) and Linux doesn't support it. I'm not that concerned about most of the other Windows based stuff. I have heard that it will run in Wine (?) but I didn't have a clue how to do it

I am building up the courage to try it again

pup · Jan 29, 2009, 20:56:31

the only programs that i really want to use are firefox, thunderbird, and vagcom, which is dianostic software for my car.

might have to use kubuntu as im still waiting for gutsy to load.......

pup · Jan 29, 2009, 23:19:14

gave up on ubuntu installing xubuntu 8.10 from text based installer....

sebt · Feb 01, 2009, 16:03:37

It depends on a few things, but the *buntu distros are a pretty good start for newbies.

For most new converts the question isn't "which distro is easy" but "which distro picks up all my hardware". I say that because most general use distros - openSUSE, Fedora and *buntu - are all easy to install and, except for some differences in package management, easy to manage too. But it's not much fun for a newbie, for example, to get their networking going if the distro doesn't pick it up during install.

The "killer feature" of *buntu is probably wubi, which gives windows users the opportunity to get their feet wet without any reconfiguration of their hard drives / partitions. This installs Linux into a virtual filesystem that's stored as a big file inside your windows filesystem. Safe, easy and just a small performance hit.

The biggest differences between the "general user" distros are choices of modules and versions included and the software used for system and package management (package management being the "add/remove programs" system within a linux distro). Ubuntu uses .deb packages (since it is based on Debian) managed by the package manager "apt", where Suse uses .rpm packages, managed by YAST.

I find openSUSE the most complete and feature rich distro out there. The DVD comes with just about everything that any type of Linux user, from beginner to expert, could want. As a seasoned Linux user and programmer I also like their choices and configuration, appreciate the time-saver that is YAST, and like the nice touches they put into polishing the front end. The latest 11.1 release is close to the bleeding edge regarding included package versions, and generally Suse can be endlessly upgraded (I started with 9 which has been stepwise upgraded to 11.1).

Have fun with Linux!

Seb

Sebby · Feb 01, 2009, 17:46:58

I'm still waiting for Wubi to support RAID 0 so I can give Ubuntu another try. It's too complicated for me to setup on RAID 0 myself (I've tried several times, unsuccessfully!).

Rik · Feb 01, 2009, 18:01:52

RAID 0 is a bad idea in my book.

pup · Feb 01, 2009, 19:54:02

well ive put xbunutu on the lappy, to be honest it struggles, i definelty need more memory (only 90meg at the moment) i was suprised how slow it is considering xp pro was on it before and that seemed to run okish.

Sebby · Feb 01, 2009, 21:03:14

Quote from: Rik on Feb 01, 2009, 18:01:52
RAID 0 is a bad idea in my book.

I know it is, you told me that a year ago but I took no notice.

I'd rather RAID 0+1, but I don't want 4 disks. I'd got Memeo AutoBackup effectively mirroring my data in real-time onto a backup drive, so I'm fine (I hope!).

davej99 · Feb 02, 2009, 10:13:54

RAID 0 seems to come into its own on high performance systems. There is a trend to dual RAID 0 drives to unlock the full potential of for example Core i7 and high end processors. The downside is reliability, but as working discs with higher level RAID NAS, RAID 0 has its place, for say HD video editing or serious gaming.

But I am just repeating press comments as I search for a decent laptop, where I can see no advantage in very large slow hard drives, which need copious and reliable backup. For this I am looking at a cheap pre-owned tower with several RAID drives running Linux server. That looks like less than £100. But would appreciate a critique of my less than informed ramblings.