I noticed that quite a few of the forumers use Linux.
I did quite a bit of distro hopping years ago before ubuntu came about.
Compiled my own kernels and generally got to understand Linux better and better.
But there were things about all these distro's that I didn't like.
Then in December 2003 I came across Gentoo Linux.
And I was sold,haven't used another distro since.
A friend of a friend of mine who lives in Indonesia wanted to replace Windows with Linux.
He was getting sick of all the viruses there.
So when he visited Holland he came by and I gave him a cd with kubuntu to try.
I knew he would probably have problems so in order to be able to help him I installed it on a separate partition.
After using Gentoo I first felt like having to repair a car blindfolded.
Using "mc" I browsed the system and it was not standard Linux at all.
In a console type "lsmod" and look at the kernel modules for hardware that you don't have.
You'll be surprised.But these modules take RAM space.

If you are interested in trying Gentoo:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/
One thing I do different from what the handbook says: I use http://www.sysresccd.org/Download instead of the Gentoo cd.
It allows you to have a desktop with Firefox to browse the Handbook during install and mc to browse the system and edit config files.
Gerard.

I used Gentoo for a while, but I consistently ran into hang-ups doing updates. After a while it just became something I didn't have time for.

One of the first distros I tried when I was looking to switch from windows was sabayon. I liked it, but it was a little too much too soon. Now with two years of linux experience, I think I might like to try it again.

I am in the process of trying different distros. I am using VMware player (free for private use) to try the different flavours. As far as I can tell the linux guest images behave as if they are native systems.
Currently in my virtual machine I have Ubuntu 11, Ubuntu 10 , Mint16 (kde) and fedora.
I also have a dedicated drive for Ubuntu9.04. I have had this for a long time .
I am currently trying to see which interface I like better Kde or gnome. Being a novice it is nice to experiment as none of my linux images are production and I can afford to stuff it up, which I have done in the past. I found Mint to be very scary to install (even in a VM machine as some of the messages are ambiguous and make you believe that it will actually install itself on your disk and reformat the bootloaders)
I am also trying to find which linux school is best , RedHat or Debian. So far I have not yet made up my mind and my first mission is to really learn about Grub so that the scariness is gone. I am reasonable windows literate and have no problems with replacing drivers or mbr's from the rescue disk or original install disks.But Grub2 scares the bejeesus out of me. I would be grateful for some pointers as to why you chose a certain brand or gui EDIT, without trying to start a linux war

I vote for Red-Hat but that's just personal preference. All Linux distros have their pluses and minuses.

If you want a stable Linux desktop for your business, go with Red Hat. Fedora is the community version, where the testing and bugs get worked out before it makes it into Red Hat. As with any distro with a short development/release cycle, you're gonna have great releases, with very few problems out of the gate, and you're gonna have problematic releases, rushed out too soon with some nasty bugs.

I usually upgrade to latest release approximately every two years. I always wait a month or so after the initial release date to upgrade. I wait to ensure there are no major bugs and give them time to issue some maintenance updates. I think that is a good strategy, whether you are from the Red-Hat or Debian based side of the aisle, or for that matter, any Linux distro on a short devel cycle. Following that strategy, I've been able to maintain a very stable, cutting edge, environment since Fedora 5. I'm currently at Fedora 14 and will probably hold out until Fedora 17 is released before my next upgrade. Although, I might move to F16 if Gimp 2.8 is released anytime soon.

Some Linux users like distros with rolling releases. I find them a bit messy.


Desktop GUI's sure have changed a lot over time. I used KDE for a long time, then moved to Gnome when KDE made radical changes. I'm gonna go ahead and give Gnome3 a shot on the next upgrade, as F14 was the last release of Gnome 2.x.x. Gnome3 takes a little getting used to. Although, it can be tweaked to look and feel a lot like Gnome2. With some tweaking of Gnome3, you can get actually get a real desktop back (what a concept).

Many people have abandoned Gnome3 in favor of KDE or LXDE. If you're looking for more of a Windows style menu system, you might like KDE or LXDE better but actually, you can tweak any of these desktops GUI's to look like an Apple style desktop, or a Windows style desktop or something totally different and unique to Linux.

One of the great things about Linux is there's everything from lots of 3D eye candy to a very minimal (or no) GUI.

Personally, I want a GUI that lets me get the most done with minimal clicks and mouse movements, and allows me to quickly navigate menus & launch apps. I also want an actual desktop to drop stuff on. It remains to be seen whether Gnome3 will win out with me for the near future. If it includes the versatility I need to allow me to customize to my taste, I'll probably end up going with it.

Sorry for the rambling post but I tried to give my opinion somewhere in there.

Thanks Tux , I shall add a Red Hat distro to the VM machine . I probably will be another month before I make up my mind and do a permanent install

Edit , GnuTux Am I right in believing that RedHat is a commercial arm ($$) and that Fedora is the free partner for the home user?

My first contact with Linux was through RedHat at university. Never got into Redhat much though, I switched to Debian as soon as I started using Linux privately. Debian is the largest distro (in number of packages) and whereas it used to be "harder" to get into than RedHat, installing Debian is really quite simple to get going these days. I wanted to really learn how to use Linux and Debian felt more "closer to the metal" than RedHat did at the time. Debian's apt-get system is really excellent (although other distros have similar things of course), and whereas I'm a minimalist I prefer to not have to compile from source more than necessesary (like in slackware). I use "raw" Debian, but the Ubuntu distro (based on Debian) has made entry even easier these days (the layer of Ubuntu polish feels like cruft for me, but that's just me).


I never liked Gnome, ever since my RedHat days. KDE allows (or at least allowed at the time I compared the two) much more customization. In the end it's mainly personal preference of course (you can after all use KDE programs in Gnome and vice versa). These days I use the KDE desktop system but not its windows manager - I use OpenBox instead, a very fast and minimalistic windowing system without any extra flairs that easily allows me to use keyboard shortcuts instead of all those annoying icons everywhere. As said, I'm a minimalist.
.
Griatch

Go to http://www.distrowatch.com and have a ball.

For a while I used to have Mandrake/Mandriva (a RH derivative) on the home PC. When I had the occasion to install a Linux on my professional PC I went to Ubuntu (our IT people support both RH and Debian distros) because that's the one that works out of the box (all these drivers take up RAM, but I don't need to spend several days figuring which modules to add before I have a working system...). The Linux on the servers I have to deal with at work are usually RedHat or OpenSuse. They aren't really cutting-edge for plenty of things (like the version of bash or core utilities...). They feel like frozen in the mid-90s, which is still better than the mid-80s feel of some other Unices (AIX, HP-UX) I have come across.

Yes, exactly. Red-Hat is the commercial arm and Fedora is the community version. It's a somewhat loose association but Fedora is basically where the testing of new technology occurs before it makes it into Red Hat. Red Hat is very conservative and their emphasis is on stability, so it takes awhile for them to adopt new innovations. If you're a business who is looking for a solid, stable distro, I think Red Hat is the best choice.

Another thing about Fedora is that they only provide FOSS in their standard repositories. Fedora is not afraid to adopt cutting edge technology and are usually first to do so but anything that is not pure FOSS or has "gray area" licensing is located on the RPM fusion repositories. This means that mp3, flash and a whole host of video and audio codecs are not included "out of the box" in a basic install of Fedora. However, it's a trivial matter to add the RPMfusion repositories and install the non-FOSS apps and codecs that you need. Fedora chose this approach to avoid any legal issues that might come their way.

Distros that bundle proprietary software and codecs could be infringing on copyrights/patents and do so at their own risk. Yet, many of them do.

In general, Fedora is a snap to install and much easier to install than generic OEM Windows. Unlike Windows, there is no searching all over the net for drivers that you can't find. Most of the time, the hardware drivers you need are installed out of the box in Fedora. This holds true with many other Linux distros as well. The exception being some of the very newest hardware/gadgets, where support hasn't yet been ported to Linux or the manufacturer is unwilling to provide the necessary info for Linux engineers to create a usable driver. I tend to avoid those manufacturers' hardware and stick with manufacturers who are Linux friendly.

As a Linux user, it's a really good idea to check to see how well a given piece of new hardware is supported in Linux before purchasing. Do a little research before you buy and all will be well.

I ran across these two videos today and thought it appropriate to post them here since we are on this topic. One is anti-Gnome3 and one is pro-Gnome3 (sarcastically?).



This one below might be offensive to some viewers so consider yourself warned...



I have not used the latest incarnation of Gnome3 enough to know if it's right for me but the nice thing about Linux is that I can easily install another desktop environment if I'm not happy with the current one I'm using (at least I can in Fedora).

That top one really cracks me up.
The second one ... well you are the owner.

I have been using gnome shell for a couple months now and love it. I can find things easier, start apps faster, and actually can see my wallpaper for the first time in years. It is a little different and requires some change of habits, but it can be easily adapted to. I would have to recommend it based on my experience. With a little tweaking, it even looks rather nice.

Did you come from a Gnome2 environment? I'm not really having that experience.

If I want to start a favorite app in Gnome3, I have to swing my mouse pointer to the upper left corner, then down through the favorites list, then click on the app I want. In Gnome2, I simply pointed to the app in the top quick launch panel and clicked.

When I want to move to another desktop, I have to swing my mouse to the upper left corner to get the desktops to appear, then over the right side of the screen, then click the desktop I want to use. In Gnome2, I simply clicked the desktop I wanted in the desktop switcher in the bottom panel.

When I want to access parcellite clipboard manager widget, it's auto-hidden in the lower right hand corner of the screen in Gnome3. With Gnome2, it was right there in the top panel.

When using a less frequently used app, I have to swing to the upper left corner, then click applications, then over to the right side of the screen, down through the categories, click category, then to the middle, scroll down the list until I get to my app, then double click it.

I guess my problem is that it takes more movements and clicks in Gnome3 that it does to do the same thing in Gnome2. It seems to me to be a less efficient DE than Gnome2. It an effort to become touch screen/pad friendly, it has become more tedious for the desktop user.

Boy,what a fool I am.
Using a distro where you have complete control of your system,foolish!
Making use of the possibility to use all the flags of your particular cpu,who needs it.
Better use "one-size-fits-all".
And that during 8 years.
Yeah I'm a complete fool.
Gerard.

For the other people trying new distros . I tried to back up my production image (win7) as I did last month but it would not work. The ubuntu image on a small drive held the last grub.
(the last image to be added).
I normally select my win7 through the grub menu. Win7 is 4th choice down.
The windows backup came back with VSS and SPP errors , indicating an unrecognised file system.
After searching found that putting the native windows Win7 drive as the first hard disk in the CMOS Bios boot sequence fixed the problem with the back up procedure. However that obviously means that there is no grub sequence and windows boots normally. So after the image backup I have to reset the cmos Bios hard disk sequence to invoke the grub boot sequence.
I mention this as I see it as a problem with dual boot instances where the Windows image needs to be backed up.


Edit --- Insert the word Bios after Cmos

I see everyone has their own taste and me I want to try Mint12. From what I have read, some setup with swap partitions and some with ram. I have 4 GB of ram. Can I run off it? As you can see:

I really don't have that big of a drive and not that much left of what I do have. Which would be the best way to go? Also can I do a clean remove of the install if I want?
Thanks

Hi Slide,
Where would you like to install Mint?
I see 11.72 GB Free but it's also called recovery partition.
A recovery partition is needed to repair Windows afaik.
For "normal" use you would be ok with 4 GB RAM,no need for swap.
But Gimp can use a lot of it when you work on large files.
In the Preferences you can limit Gimp's RAM use but then it will need swap.
You could install on 11 GB but it will leave little for saving large files.
As for uninstalling Linux you could boot from your Mint cd/dvd and use the tools provided to reformat the partition to NTFS.
I don't know if the Mint disk comes with "mkfs.ntfs" program.
http://www.sysresccd.org/Download will give you a cd that can.
Gerard.

Is that how your Acer came from the factory or have you re-installed or upgraded Windows on the system?

In other words, can you still hit Alt-F10 (I believe that's it) to bring up your recovery menu?

You have to be careful when upgrading Windows or installing Linux on systems with recovery partitions you want to keep or you might overwrite the Acer custom MBR, which will keep you from getting into the system recovery menu and accessing the recovery partition.

That actually may not be a problem, you can always recover from disks (if you have them). If you've upgraded Windows or you're dual booting two operating systems on the same drive and overwritten the MBR, the Acer recovery partition is probably not very useful, at this point. In that case, you could use it for something else.

Thats a good point that GnuTux makes about breaking the MBR. Pity that recovery partition it is at the beginning of the disk rather that at the end. Some thoughts later about the MBR.

The recovery partition is a 'hidden' partition which will restore your computer back to factory default, see your manual and best to leave this alone. The other little one is for windows recovery, boot and maybe bitlocker, not absolutely necessary but no point removing it.

So what can you do?

A quick search and this is reasonably up-to-date and looks ok.

http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2011/06/11/du ... windows-7/

If you remember from Mollys recent posts, there are different opinions on partitioning. A couple of things to bear in mind.

You are limited to 4 partitions unless you make an extended partition which can contain several logical partitions. Unlike windows, linux can boot from an extended partition. You probably will not need a linux swap partition but from memory the LM installer makes one anyway, default will be 2x memory so reduce this to something sensible like 1 GB.

Before you dive in at the deep end, have a look at the LM forums to see what the current problems are.
http://forums.linuxmint.com/

There are different versions of LM, the most recent seems to be causing a few problems at the moment, sometimes it is a good idea to wait a month or two until the most obvious bugs are sorted. The LM debian edition is a rolling release, works ok but not much is happening on this release at the moment.

Whatever you decide, the first step will be to shrink your 'C' partition. Once that is done and before installing anything, why not backup the MBR. Grub2 is a real PITA if anything goes wrong. Plenty free tools for this eg.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Boo ... CKER.shtml
http://www.diydatarecovery.nl/mbrtool.htm

Make a win7 recovery disk if you do not already have one and backup everything possible before you need it. ie all the usual advice.