The [Main] What Distro should YOU use? - Page 11


View Poll Results: Best Distro for Low resource PC?

Voters
170. You may not vote on this poll
  • Dam Small Linux

    20 11.76%
  • Debian

    42 24.71%
  • Feather Linux

    3 1.76%
  • Gentoo

    13 7.65%
  • Puppy Linux

    9 5.29%
  • Slackware

    38 22.35%
  • SuSE

    9 5.29%
  • Vector

    10 5.88%
  • Yoper

    0 0%
  • Other

    26 15.29%
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 198

Thread: The [Main] What Distro should YOU use?

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by saikee
    I beg to disagree.
    It's not a matter of taste, so I can't see how you can disagree with me. It's about something I need from an operating system that Linux can't offer me (or so it seems from je_fro's replies).

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    5,901
    Linux offers you the opportunity to create your own distro, any way you want it.
    It would be a lot easier for you if the features you wanted were technically desirable. Unfortunately, they aren't, so nobody is going to implement them, except MS (and possibly you, if you want it bad enough).
    Last edited by je_fro; 08-01-2007 at 07:24 AM.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    2,983
    I disagree because my experience with Linux has been very pleasant. You will find I even claimed enjoying a honeymoon with Linux well over 1.5 year into it. In fact up to now I am still amazed by the things I could do in Linux. Yet three years ago I never wondered outside the M$ systems.

    I take a different position.

    If one has paid for a commercial license of a M$ system then one keeps it.

    If one finds a free distro that gives out a bit of nice features, then installs it because it is free.

    If one likes to use a software not shipped with a distro but available in a repository then downloads it, "yum" it or "apt-get" it.

    One can always use any system for whatever it ticks one's imagination. One doesn't have to stick with one system for ever and expecting it to do all the bits and pieces others put together.

    Therefore there is no need to be unpleasant about anything. An expert user can get a lot more out of the same system than I could so my unpleasant experience may be just due my own lack of knowledge in the subject.

    I came to JustLinux with an open mind as a student the mods here taught me to booted 100+ systems in 1.5 years. By any standard this is a very happy and exciting experience for a PC user.

    If you can boot any system or run any guest system inside a virtual machine host then you can have any taste you want, because your need can be served by as many as systems as you care to install.
    Last edited by saikee; 08-01-2007 at 07:40 AM.
    Linux user started Jun 2004 - No. 361921
    Using a Linux live CD to clone XP
    To install Linux and keep Windows MBR untouched
    Adding extra Linux & Doing it in a lazy way
    A Grub menu booting 100+ systems & A "Howto" to install and boot 145 systems
    Just cloning tips Just booting tips A collection of booting tips

    Judge asked Linux "You are being charged murdering Windoze by stabbing its heart with a weapon, what was it?" Replied Linux "A Live CD"

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10
    So you're saying there's no Linux distribution that can be installed and be kept for at least two years, during which the user is allowed to install whatever new software is released, just like Windows/Mac OS X. How Linux is a viable product, or for that matter "ready for the desktop"?

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Haarlem, Holland
    Posts
    129
    I think you can keep your distro for two years, install for example debian, apt-get install all programs you want and apt-get update once in a while. If there is a program where the chosen (stable?) version isn't the one you want I believe you can install one from an other repository (testing?) or compile it yourself, but that will be more work then just one command.
    Since I have been happy with the offered programs in the stable repositorys I haven't tried this so I could be wrong.
    Last edited by folkert; 08-01-2007 at 11:01 AM.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    876
    zugu

    If you don't like Linux don't use it, stay with M$ or go to Mac, shoot make your own OS and put it on the market. (do I smell a mole? maybe not, but it just kinda smells that way.) I say that because you come to this forum to complain about linux and push how good you think M$ is. If you gave Linux a try and didn't like it, then move on.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    2,983
    If you don't want updates just turn the automatic update off. That is what you would do in Windows, right?

    The words "ready for desktop" implies Linux isn't ready. I still run one of the oldest distro, a Debian Woody with a 2.2.x kernel (current one is 2.6.2x) with a switchable Gnome or KDE.

    If you load the current versions of the leading distros like Mandriva, Knoppix, Slax, Debian, Ubuntu, Sabayon, Suse.... you will not get a terminal only system at start-up. The most die hard terminal-mode distro is probably Slackware but it still allows you to fire up a GUI immediate after an installation by command "startx". That was the way even when I started Linux.

    The current varieties and features available in modern Linux are truly mind boggling if you care to investigate.

    Even I think Linux has much more to offer with the desktop personally I think the terminal mode is where most users will find happiness because that is where you are transformed into a master controlling all the hardware like telling a hard disk to slow down, getting every bit of information that you never aware of available at your disposal, moving information between different operating systems etc.

    I don't know why people have a hang up with the terminal mode. Why not use it in additional to the desktop? Every command you use at a terminal is a knowledge for life because very few get changed. At my present level of knowledge I would say there is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the tasks one can only carry out by a terminal or a console. Would a user ever be happy not knowing to use the rest one-third or one-half of an operating system?

    It is not an advertisement but a little knowledge in terminal mode can enable a user to go through various task like a hot wire cutting through butter. It is where the true computing speed and power lie because you are using the very tools with which the desktop was created. Whatever a deskop cannot deliver you have the opportunity to make it happen with a terminal.

    I suppose at the end of the day there are people who are only interested to use a PC. On a like to like basis I think Linux is a viable alternative.

    Linux is open source. The knowledge is in the public domain so everthing can be learned. In that Linux will appeal to users who, in additional to just using the PC, are interested to know a computer does things.
    Linux user started Jun 2004 - No. 361921
    Using a Linux live CD to clone XP
    To install Linux and keep Windows MBR untouched
    Adding extra Linux & Doing it in a lazy way
    A Grub menu booting 100+ systems & A "Howto" to install and boot 145 systems
    Just cloning tips Just booting tips A collection of booting tips

    Judge asked Linux "You are being charged murdering Windoze by stabbing its heart with a weapon, what was it?" Replied Linux "A Live CD"

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by mrrangerman43
    zugu

    If you don't like Linux don't use it, stay with M$ or go to Mac, shoot make your own OS and put it on the market. (do I smell a mole? maybe not, but it just kinda smells that way.) I say that because you come to this forum to complain about linux and push how good you think M$ is. If you gave Linux a try and didn't like it, then move on.
    I gave Linux a try, by using ONE release of ONE distro. I came here to ask about other distros that could suit my taste. What's wrong with that?

    I also outlined what I think Microsoft did right, in hope that I could find a Linux distribution with a similar behavior in package management. If you think Microsoft can't do anything right, it's your problem, not mine.

    Also, writing "M$" instead of "MS" doesn't make you smarter.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    2,983
    There is no need to loose temper here.

    The M$ is pretty standard equivalent to MS and widely used in many forums.

    It is good that Zugu qualified himself by stating his opinion was based on a limited exposure to Linux with only one distro. I am sure more exposure to various distros will yield a fairer view with Linux.

    Linux has two boot loaders Lilo and Grub which can multi-boot different PC systems regardless of their types. Therefore Linux is an ideal vehicle for investigating other operating systems because its boot loaders can easily boot them all.
    Last edited by saikee; 08-01-2007 at 10:44 AM.
    Linux user started Jun 2004 - No. 361921
    Using a Linux live CD to clone XP
    To install Linux and keep Windows MBR untouched
    Adding extra Linux & Doing it in a lazy way
    A Grub menu booting 100+ systems & A "Howto" to install and boot 145 systems
    Just cloning tips Just booting tips A collection of booting tips

    Judge asked Linux "You are being charged murdering Windoze by stabbing its heart with a weapon, what was it?" Replied Linux "A Live CD"

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    21
    As others have tried to tell you, Linux is all about choice. There are literally hundreds of distros out there. If you don't like one try another. Windows is windows if you don't like the way they do something there is nothing you can do about it. Do you have unlimited funds that allow you to purchase all the Windows software from the last seven years? I have installed hundreds of Linux apps over the years and not spent a dime.
    I was born in a crossfire hurricane...
    Linux User #343734

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    876
    zugu

    In reading your posts you want a OS that you can install any program you want, not have to worry about dependencies, you "despise compiling and editing config files." (nothing wrong with that)

    But alot of people have put in hundreds of hours of their own time to make a Package Management system so that you don't have to worry about dependencies. And you feel like they are belittling you? "(the "we know what's good for you so trust us" approach)".

    My post was not ment to make you mad, I just got to the point. People like yourself "Windows XP power user" tend to have a hard time with Linux, unless they are willing to do things the Linux way. I'm sure it took you some time to learn M$ sorry, Windows. Linux is NOT windows and it will take some time.

    Getting back on the subject, I just fail to see how having 8 to 10 thousand programs to pick from would be a problem? If you want to try the newer packages you can just do what folkert said, change the repo list to testing and you will have tons more to pick from. You don't have to install with the PM but it does help.

    As for a distro that's everything you need/want if you just can't get over the Package Manager setup, then Windows or Mac should be the direction you stay/go.

    I hope you find what is best for you!

    PS:
    Also, writing "M$" instead of "MS" doesn't make you smarter.
    I wish I had half the knowledge on computing most of the people on this forum have forgotten, yourself included.

    Sorry if I offended you with my post.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    5,901
    The way I see it, you want something that's flawed. People work on Linux so they can achieve something they see as technically beautiful. Just because nobody distributes your flawed idea of perfection, doesn't mean linux isn't ready for the desktop, it means you aren't ready for linux.
    Of course you can get exactly what you want if you do it yourself, but that seems like too much to ask...it's much easier to throw rocks than to create something...
    Don't bother replying...we'll see you in a couple years when you can't open your docs or any "unapproved" media...
    By the way... we see a fair bit of this kind of whining here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    299
    zugu, I couldn't agree with you more when you said you '..."despise compiling...". Guess what? I do too! That's why I like Debian and the apps and programs I can install from its repositories. Nothing could be simpler than 'apt-get install whatever'. I'll also install a .deb file if I can't find it in the repository before I work with a tarball. I can't remember the last time I installed one. And if I never do, it'll be to soon. But that's me. And I'm certain I'm not alone.

    But, kind sir, what you're talking about, this flexibility you have with Windows, is one of the major flaws I see in Windows. There seems to be no control what so ever on where one can get these programs. And as such, malware, spyware, virii, worms and all kinds of nasty things are allowed in. In all my years of working with Linux, I've yet to see where one can't find the program one needs from approved sources. Never.

    There are two kinds of PC users. On one hand you have the people that just want to use their machines. On the other hand, you have folks that just can't leave well enough alone. Welcome to Linux! Some distros are so bleeding edge a geekoid like you would have a field day. If you are the power user you say you are Linux is the place for you. It gets easier as you go along. Believe me it does.

    Take it easy and relax. Keep slugging away like a 'power user' you are. Linux won't let you down.
    Thanks,
    Loopback48

    Debian fanboy. And only Debian.

    http://www.debiantutorials.org/

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10
    While I am certain you're all trying to help me, some of you keep missing the most important thing.

    I know Debian and Debian-based distributions use apt-get. I know apt-get is a pleasure to use. I know what it does and how it functions.

    But what when a new version of VLC or Pidgin or Firefox or OpenOffice.org or any other software appears? IT'S NOT IN THE REPOSITORIES. I have the following choices to make:

    1) check the backports repository, hoping someone backported the app; it usually isn't there, because the newer version is "too different" and "might compromise the stability of the system".

    2) check the official website for a .deb package; this is again a 50/50 shot;

    4) get the sources and create a .deb; a very complex task that's not for every one, including me;

    3) get the sources and compile it; this is an ordeal, since it includes newer functionality it can compromise the stability of the apt-get ecosystem; it might require newer dependencies that have to be installed too, some of them low-level, therefore with a high chance of breaking the system;

    4) if a newer release of the distribution exists, and if it includes the needed software, dist-upgrade;

    All these methods are NOT RECOMMENDED by the distribution creators. The official advice is to stick with whatever is in the "original" repositories. Compiling things has the potential to b0rk dist-upgrades, outside packages are "not to be trusted", "current", official packages are recommended instead backported packages.

    So the best way is to stick with the developers' recommendation: official repositories, no compiling since the apt-get domino has no knowledge of compiled things, no nothing.

    There's no official, secure, recommended way of installing things outside the "base" repositories, using either sources or binaries.

    Now compare this with Windows where I use Firefox 1.5, and I want to install Firefox 2. Remove Firefox 1.5, install Firefox 2. It's THAT simple. No nags, no compiling, no fears of breaking the house of cards. This is what I'm searching for! Is it that much to ask? It seems it is.

    In the light of your comments, I had come to a conclusion. Ubuntu, or Debian for that matter, are not real operating systems, are not real platforms. They are just collections of software, organized into huge repositories. Software inside those repositories is frozen in time, is a snapshot of what was available at the moment of the release and is tested to work together.

    What makes it on the CDs or DVDs is just a slice of that collection, but the user is able to install anything, in countless combinations. THIS is the actual platform.

    Now compare with Windows or Mac, where the operating system gets released every few years. It's just that, the operating system. Developers have the guarantee of stable APIs, or at least APIs that won't change for a long time. This is just the base, the user can install anything that gets released in the time to the next version of the OS, at least. Imagine the number of possibilities, it is truly infinite, while when I'm constrained by a repository, the number is much lower. I can throw away most of my fears when installing things, since the OS was designed to be flexible. It's not a house of cards at all.

    Now how's this bad, again? Cut the security issues in libraries crap, it should be the developer's job to update his/her software, and the user's job to install the upgrades and apply the patches. This way we also know who is at fault when problems arise. Now the resources usage would be a problem, since the amounts of HDD space and RAM in use would skyrocket. But that can be solved through optimization and a more intelligent and responsible use of development libraries.

    So?

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    2,983
    zugu,

    It is obvious to me that you are an ideal customer for the commercial systems.

    Why bother trying the free Linux at all?

    You should not waste time and life on a system that does not hand everything on a plate to you.

    Spend your time and money to search the one that suit your need.

    I recommend you try the M$ system or Mac forums.
    Linux user started Jun 2004 - No. 361921
    Using a Linux live CD to clone XP
    To install Linux and keep Windows MBR untouched
    Adding extra Linux & Doing it in a lazy way
    A Grub menu booting 100+ systems & A "Howto" to install and boot 145 systems
    Just cloning tips Just booting tips A collection of booting tips

    Judge asked Linux "You are being charged murdering Windoze by stabbing its heart with a weapon, what was it?" Replied Linux "A Live CD"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •