mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 02:44 PM |
|
|
New MINT FLAVOUR LINUX just Brilliant
British Trident  http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=67641
 
Rescued attachment Screenshot.png
|
|
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 03:00 PM |
|
|
Pat - is that one of the free ones? I have tentatively started looking at Linux, and I like the look of PCLinuxOS. Trying to get my PC to dual boot
with Linux on an external USB hard disk. After f*cking up my MBR and nto being able to boot at all for about 2 hours, I found a way to blast the MBR
and am back in Windows for the time being.
http://www.pclinuxos.com/
The other one I have downloaded but not yet tried is Kubuntu http://www.kubuntu.com/
Cheers,
Simon
|
|
|
Keith Weiland
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 04:34 PM |
|
|
All Linux distributions are free and most don't cost anything even from the distributor. Linux Mint is free, is based off Ubuntu and
isn't really all that much different to Ubuntu other than the default color scheme. Ubuntu is based off Debian which was basically one of the
original distros.
PCLinuxOS is based off Mandrake now called Mandiva which is based off of RedHat.
I would recommend sticking with Ubuntu or one of it's derivatives such as Linux Mint as application installation is very easy with aptitude or
apt-get or one of the graphical apt utilities. Ubuntu has a huge following, and development is progressing at break neck speed at the moment. Kubuntu
is great as is Xubuntu and for the kids Edubuntu.
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 06:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Keith Weiland
All Linux distributions are free
Not true at all.
Linspire, Xandros, Redhat spring to mind.
Yes there are free derivatives (Freespire, Xandros OCE, Fedora (7 launched yesterday)) but Linux != Free
Given how new/stable it is, I'd give Fedora a go. That said, there is relatively little between them all, apart from ease of install.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 06:40 PM |
|
|
Why have you used a screen dump of our site - I wonder? 
Seriously though - what are the advantages of using anything other than Windows? What disadvantages are there... please explain and I'll set me
up a dual boot!
Steve
|
|
|
Keith Weiland
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 07:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_fbi
quote:
Originally posted by Keith Weiland
All Linux distributions are free
Not true at all.
Linspire, Xandros, Redhat spring to mind.
Yes there are free derivatives (Freespire, Xandros OCE, Fedora (7 launched yesterday)) but Linux != Free
Given how new/stable it is, I'd give Fedora a go. That said, there is relatively little between them all, apart from ease of install.
I think you will find my statement is true, All Linux distributions are free, as in speech, I did say that most don't cost anything after that
which should have been a clue to my meaning.
It is however possible to obtain legally any linux distribution for no charge as the GPL requires that the source code is made available not only to
people who purchase any particular software which falls under the GPL (All linux distributions do) but also to basically anybody that that person may
want to distribute it to. So you could buy linspire (which is actually now completely free) and they have to give you the source code, you can then
freely give me the source code, I can legally re-compile it, use it and sell it if I want barring any Trademarked graphics or proprietary non-linked
program like CNR.
This is why if you want free Red Hat you just download Centos or fedora or Whitebox linux.
|
|
|
Keith Weiland
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 07:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
Seriously though - what are the advantages of using anything other than Windows? What disadvantages are there... please explain and I'll set me
up a dual boot!
Steve
Some people will say not having to pay the Microsoft tax every time they decide to stop supporting one Operating system to make you buy another.
The facts that there is no effective way to make a virus for Linux. That Linux is much more secure than windows. That there are more programs
available for Linux than windows. Also you get free updates and upgrades.
Disadvantages are if you need to use a particular program you may find it doesn't run on Linux or doesn't have a Linux version and you
would have to make due with an alternative which may be inferior in some way to the windows version. You may also have some peripheral which the
manufacturer of doesn't write drivers for and wont give enough details for Linux developers to write them without a lot of effort (they usually
get there in the end though).
This is not actually a reflection on Linux as an Operating system but simply because windows has such a huge install base that up until recently many
companies saw to reason to support Linux and so don't compile or write their software to work with Linux.
If you are happy with windows or OSX then there may be no reason for you to install Linux but you could say if you are happy with your comfortable
reliable tin top there is no reason to build a locost.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 07:32 PM |
|
|
I'm now a dedicated UBUNTU user - I tried Mint on another box and found it too frustrating: it's quite hard to access the system setup in
ubuntu, it's damn near impossible in Mint!
It's also worth trying xubuntu if you have an older PC that's struggling a bit with the latest operating system. It uses a lean-and-mean
user-interface that doesn't take so many resources, but still allows the usual applications to run. I have an antique Toshiba Satellite laptop
that is snail-cringingly slow when using Win2000 (it was originally made for Win98) and not much faster with ubuntu. It's pretty snappy, and
very much more usable, with xubuntu.
One caution - try out the interface with a 'live CD' that runs from the CD-ROM and doesn't install, but be prepared for a VERY slow
startup and interface. Use it to get a feel for the way things work, and expect it to be a LOT faster when properly installed.
Ubuntu isn't perfect, but neither are Microsnot's products. However, when you get the hang of how things fit together you'll find
it very easy to use.
HTH,
David
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
Only two real disadvantages of linux are
(1) Lack of an MS Access equivalent --- this is a rear deal breaker for some users.
(2) Lack of state of the art games
Ubuntu has made major strides since its intial release, the latest version Fiesty Fawn has much better harware support than the previous versions.
However Mint Linux - which really just a customised install of Ubuntu is the way to go if you don't want to have to muck about to use copyright
protected multimedia formats.
If you have hardware recognition problems try the Kannotix distro -- it is a verion of the famous Knoppix distro but taillored for a hard disk
install.
A few recommendations to all Linux users.
Only use Debian based distro, a Debian based distro avoids any problem installing new software. Having said that two or three others that are RPM
are also very good Fedora, PCLinuxOS, Yoper.
Don't bother with Open Office it runs like treacle particularly at start up -- if you have Gnome desktop install Gnumeric and Abiword if you
have KDE try the KDE office suite.
Also Install
GuardDog to control the firewall.
For file transfers over a network up to the LinuxBox try WinScp at the Windows end.
Install K3b for CD/DVD burning and keep it updated.
K9Copy --- works a treat for copying DVDs.
For a FTP & SFTP client FileZilla works great under both Linux and Windows.
For handling digital photographs Picasa has both both Linux and Windows versions.
For simple backups over a network try Konserve.
[Edited on 1/6/07 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 08:15 PM |
|
|
No problems accessing the file system in Mint it is identical to Ubuntu in this respect. Where I disagree with the Ubuntu (and Mint) setup is that by
default they don't allow user root to login from the graphical login screen --- in Mint this is easily fixed by a single mouse click.
The only distro that is worth running live is Knoppix, this starts and runs pretty quickly even on modest hardware, other live CDs are so slow they
are only useful as means of installing the distro.
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
I'm now a dedicated UBUNTU user - I tried Mint on another box and found it too frustrating: it's quite hard to access the system setup in
ubuntu, it's damn near impossible in Mint!
It's also worth trying xubuntu if you have an older PC that's struggling a bit with the latest operating system. It uses a lean-and-mean
user-interface that doesn't take so many resources, but still allows the usual applications to run. I have an antique Toshiba Satellite laptop
that is snail-cringingly slow when using Win2000 (it was originally made for Win98) and not much faster with ubuntu. It's pretty snappy, and
very much more usable, with xubuntu.
One caution - try out the interface with a 'live CD' that runs from the CD-ROM and doesn't install, but be prepared for a VERY slow
startup and interface. Use it to get a feel for the way things work, and expect it to be a LOT faster when properly installed.
Ubuntu isn't perfect, but neither are Microsnot's products. However, when you get the hang of how things fit together you'll find
it very easy to use.
HTH,
David
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 08:36 PM |
|
|
I've used Linux for 10 years, never needed to log in as root (some distro's even break when you do - gentoo did for a while IIRC).
It's a bad idea as Microsoft have proved with their 'everyone is root, oops there goes a virus' architecture.
If you don't want to type sudo all the time when doing some admin job I run 'sudo sh' from a terminal.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Keith Weiland
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 08:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Only two real disadvantages of linux are
(2) Lack of state of the art games
[Edited on 1/6/07 by britishtrident]
I wouldn't say lack I would say fewer. With cedega and wine fewer still...err you know what I mean.
Some recent and upcoming Linux compatible games are:
UT2003/2004/2007/UT3
Quake 1 2 3 and 4
Americas Army
Enemy Territory
Doom3
serious sam 2
Neverwinter Nights
Enemy Territory Quake wars
WOW and many others work with wine and if you want a great free flight sim look no further than Flight
Gear
[Edited on 1/6/2007 by Keith Weiland]
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 09:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
The only distro that is worth running live is Knoppix, this starts and runs pretty quickly even on modest hardware, other live CDs are so slow they
are only useful as means of installing the distro.
Slax from a USB stick is very fast. It'll also save changes to the stick (or any other media you like too) so its more like an installed OS.
Definately worth looking at if you need this kind of thing.
[Edited on 1/6/07 by the_fbi]
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 1/6/07 at 09:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Only two real disadvantages of linux are
(1) Lack of an MS Access equivalent --- this is a rear deal breaker for some users.
Whats wrong with Base?
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 3/6/07 at 10:23 AM |
|
|
So reading through that lot... makes me more curious still!
I mainly use my PC for Video Editing/Photography Editing/Music - listening/editing/CAD Design/MS Office
I don't play/have any games installed. I have a reasonable spec machine 64Bit 3.2Mhz CPU, 2Gb RAM, 400Mhz BUS Speed... 256Mb VRAM almost 1Tb of
HDD etc
So what is the most suitable OS now...?
Steve
[Edited on 3-6-07 by Hellfire]
|
|
|
Keith Weiland
|
| posted on 3/6/07 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
Freedom has a price.
There is CAD software for Linux but I have no experience with it.
Depending on what you need to do with Photographs then Gimp is quite good, not quite up to Photoshop standards
but can do most of the things most people would require in Photoshop other than CYMK color which is due in the next version. It has a different
interface so be prepared for a steep learning curve similar to when you first tried whatever editing software you use now . You can also get Photoshop
running with wine depending on which version of Photoshop you have. This may also be possible with many programs you use, check the
wine website for details
For audio editing Ardour is supposedly pretty good. There is also
Audacity which is a more simple audio editor.
Cinelerra or Kino may be suitable for you video editing, Cinerella
has been compared to Final Cut Pro and Premier and "includes many of the features of the pricey professional editors and some extras: real-time
visual effects, FireWire input/output, render-farm capability, and even support for HDTV formats and Ogg Vorbis"
I would suggest partitioning your windows box and installing Ubuntu or Linux Mint if you prefer which I think uses all of Ubuntu's repositories
anyway and trying out some of these programs, To install any of these programs should be simple, just use synaptic or the application installer
included with Ubuntu which will find/download and install the program all in one go.
Remember there are very active Ubuntu Forums if you need help.
|
|
|
