Linux Questions:
Andrew Cory
I am considering tossing a Linux Partition onto my HDD, and playing around with it. I've done this before, so I am fairly fluent with the mechanics of actually partitioning the drive and whatnot. What I need to know:
Which Distro. should I work with? The last time I tossed Linux onto my box, it was the very last Lindows version (it came free with a magazine; the day after the Magazine hit the shelf, Lindows became Linspire). In the ideal world, I get a recommendation for something like that, but isn't a subscription service...
I've had past experiences with Linux where there was no good way of doing file management. Windows Explorer represent the minimum level of functionality I am interested in...
Is there a version of the taskbar that is prettier than I've seen from KDE and GNOME? Prettiness is low on my scale, I admit, but GAH! Those are just ugly...
Is there a Linux equivalent of .exe/.msi? What about .zip? I don't want to muck about with compiling software if I can help it, being able to double-click an icon and having everything go where it should strikes me as minimum functionality. I understand that others may feel differently...
Perhaps most importantly: what are the answers to questions I have completely failed to ask? Also, what are those questions...
.rpm, is pretty close to .msi, although some people say .deb is superior (not sure why). However .rpm is the one that Mandrake supports both graphically and from the command line, so my choice is made.
Most apps are written either the GNOME or KDE, although you can choose one or the other for the "look and feel" and run both KDE and GNOME apps, along with other apps. KDE these days works pretty hard to give that "Redmond" look to your Linux desktop.
Zip for what purpose? The lastest Linux distros do actually support zip files. I assume you will prefer to use install packages like .rpm rather than mucking with .tar.gz unless you have to.
I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all Linux distro. A lot of it is a matter of individual taste, plus whether the distro fits your particular needs and your level of technical know-how. I myself have been quite happy with Mandrake— first went over to Mandrake 9.1 in September 2003 and used that for over a year, then installed Mandrake 10.1 right before Christmas.
I'm nobody's idea of a computer geek, I'm just a long-time computer hobbyist. I generally know what I'm doing with my computer, or if I don't know, I'm able to go and scrounge around until I find the answers I'm looking for. Most Linux users I've met are great people, though unfortunately there's an element of truth to the stereotype of the angry, rigid, fire-breathing Linux zealot— one reason why I almost always scrounge for my answers silently, in lurker mode.
As for downloading and installing new software, with Mandrake I generally download RPMs from my chosen FTP mirror site, located at a university not far from me. Some folks like RPMs, some hate them. I've found them to be no sweat once my sources were properly set up— easy enough with the help of Easy Urpmi. Once you do that, it's as simple as selecting available software from a categorized list in a graphical interface, it will take care of downloading and installing the package and any needed dependencies for you.
(And in some instances I do find myself compiling software— usually amounts to downloading a tarball (.tar.gz or .tar.bz2, analogous to .zip), untarring it in /usr/local, and then .configure, make, make install. Though details may vary from one package to the next.)
KDE and GNOME can be configured and styled in a wide variety of ways, though I'm not up on the details of that, as I myself use neither of them— I happen to prefer the Fluxbox window manager.
Mandrake is the only distro with which I have any significant hands-on experience. Like I say, I've been happy with it, but YMMV.
Another one you might want to look into, a quite new distro, user-friendly, which has received a lot of good reviews (in fact, a lot of rave reviews), is Ubuntu.
The basic argument, though, comes down to .rpm verses .deb. Both are package formats that allow for easy installation, but they have some internal differences, mostly in how they specify package dependencies. The reason people say that .deb is better than .rpm is because the .deb format allows for more options for how packages depend on each other. Where .rpm only lets you say, "Package B depends on package A", and so you must install package A before you can install package B, the .deb format lets you distinguish between "Package B absolutely requires package A and won't function without it" (a "requires" dependency), "package B will work on its own, but its functionality will be much enhanced if you have package A as well" (a "recommends" dependency), and "package B will work fine on its own, but package A would add a neat feature that you might like" (a "suggests" dependency).
Also, in my experience, the .deb-based tools have been much better at tracking down dependency chains than the .rpm-based tools. I've downloaded RPM packages that just said, "Package A depends on packages B and C". Find B and C, and discover that B depends on D and E, C depends on F and G, and D depends on H. It took a while for all the dependencies to be resolved. The .deb-based tools that I've used, OTOH, were smart enough to track down the dependency chains for me, and tell me "Package A will be installed. In addition, the following packages will be installed to resolve dependencies: B, C, D, E, F, G, H." And then they installed them in the correct order: H first, then D, E, F, G, then B and C, and finally A.
So I'd recommend a distribution that's based on the .deb format, like Knoppix or SimplyMEPIS. Both have a LiveCD version that you can download and run off a CD without ever needing to touch your hard disk, so you can easily try both before making a decision. Note: the next version of SimplyMEPIS is scheduled to be released on Feburary 21st, so if you decide to go with that one, you may want to wait a week or so and pick up the latest version before you do a hard-disk install.
Hope this helps.
Ubuntu also has a LiveCD version, so yet again you can try it without needing to do a full install. And Ubuntu is also coming out with a new release in about a month or so: it might be worth waiting until that one is available. But the LiveCD is, as I recall, quite useable for your everyday work.
And correction, above, that's ./configure, make, make install. Wouldn't want any of them Linux zealots jumping down my throat...
I understand it has an XWindows client, too.
http://www.cygwin.org/
It is not a stand-alone Linux. If that's what you want, you'll be disappointed in Cygwin. But if you just want the Linux tools available on your Windows box, it's definitely worth a look.
On the other hand, broken packages and management in debian and the redhat clones fill me with screaming rage, so there might be something to be said for Doing It Right Yourself.
If you want unix on the desktop, and pretty, get a used Mac or a new Mac Mini and run OSX. (The bottom-end machine I'd consider is a Blue-and-White G3, or ideally a "Sawtooth" G4, which runs about 200-250 bucks, including OSX and a modicum of ram and HD.)
(My own personal view is to avoid both KDE and Gnome like the plagues of bad UI design and resource wastage they are, but that's my personal valuation and aesthetic. Also, it can't help them that I first used KDE around version 1.)
http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
Slax based on Slackware: http://slax.linux-live.org/
Choosing a distro can become very much a religious-war type decision; many of the distros have very ferverent advocates. The good thing about this is that it's usually fairly easy to learn what's bad about a distro from the advocates of the others.
That coverage is the strongest point for Debian-based distros. I've heard good things abou Mandrake as well. The original Red Hat builds *didn't* have that kind of support, but the new Fedora stuff might be better, and there have been third-party builds of "apt" (which is the Debian tool) that provided the reference database for the older RedHat builds.
Your best bet is to find a local Linux User Group and see what they like to use...
I'd like to correct the Cygwin reference, though, because Cygwin is a port of some Linux/Unix software to Windows plus a Unix-emulation layer, not a Linux distribution. It lets you do Unixly things, but it's *not* a Linux (Or a BSD, which is an entire other camp of zero-cost/minimal-limits Unix fanatics.)
Andrew: Don't forget Distro Watch, too as a source of reviews and comparison.
Another consideration is how quickly the distro tests and packages the newest version of a typical Linux application, or a new Linux application.
Mandrake is one of those that doesn't attempt to lock you into either KDE or Gnome. (You can always install others as well, in any distro).
I would avoid Linspire, not for any quality reason, but because it attempts to hide Linux behind a Windows facade.
Rather than partitioning, why not get out some old "desktop" computer and dedicate it to Linux. Linux will run on utter crap, unlike Windows. That way you can play with web and mailservers along with the end-user stuff.
By the way, I really like Gentoo, but it is very definitely not what Andrew is looking for.
Stay away from Slackware or Debian. The installations are nightmarish. SuSE has a lovely installation procedure, but I thought the final product left a bit to be desired. My choices would be (in order): Mandrake, SuSE, Fedora.
(I just happen to be writing a book about Linux, and one of the things I'm addressing is the pros and cons of different distributions.)
Now, as far as the distro, well, that's a big source for a flamewar. Really, it's up to you. But, I can personally suggest Slackware as my favorite. I chose it because it makes you learn. As in, if you learn on Slackware, you can pretty much do anything on any other distro. BUT, it is not for everyone. If you want something that just works I'd look into Ubuntu. I'm impressed with it. Also, I hear good things about SUSE. Suse anoyed me because it doesn't install the tools to compile things by default but since you don't want to compile it doesn't matter. Mandrake is nice, but be sure you have a hefty system. In my experience, for what ever its worth, Mandrake is a system hog compared to Slack.
I can't really comment on the window manager much, I used to use KDE which was nice and intuitive coming from Windows but now I use Windowmaker, which is very light weight. I honestly don't know much about gnome.
Package management can be a pain in rpm based systems. I usually end up pulling my hair out when I try but I hear you get used to it. Slackware doesn't force dependency checks which is good and bad. If you go with Slackware check out Linuxpackages.net where there are many Slackware packages. Check out swaret at Swaret which is a nice way for updates.
Even so, regardless of what distro you choose, Linuxquestions.org is an awesome place for help.
The freedom of choice and the many choices there are can be daunting at times. My best advice is to pick a distro and stick with it for a while before you change. And, above all, make a plan to change over with distinct goals and steps like I mentioned in my crappy article.
Good luck. ;)
I work for a company that makes a very fine Linux distribution, if I do say so myself.
Seriously, most of the suggestions above are good ones. Debian-based distributions tend to be easier to install software on, though most of the innovations in Debian are now available for RPM-based distros as add-ons. (The new version of Debian itself will have a new installer that's better than the current one, and most Debian-like distributions include an enhanced installer.)
-Mandrake is a great "starter," user-friendly distro. Recommended.
-While I personally prefer the Debian-style method of package distribution, Paul's (excellent) link to Easy Urmpi certainly reduces the pain of dependencies.
-I personally prefer KDE over Gnome. YMMV. There is a KDE setup application which allows the user to pick'n'choose how the desktop looks and feels. You can even set up a near-Windows clone desktop, if you like. Alas, this li'l app isn't included by everyone. One of the downsides of the "roll you own" approach. :(
-One suggestion for the novice: stay in the big ponds. In this case, either KDE or Gnome. Start mucking around with other desktops, and you'll encounter less support. Not a flame, but a citation. :)
-re:Cygwin. It is (barely) usable as a Windows command-line emulation for Linux. Basically it creates (or tries to) an equivalent to the Linux command line under Windows. I can say from personal experience it is rather buggy, and should be avoided at all costs. It's a "developer thing." Heh.
-Siggy mentioned Slackware. Slackware is (IMHO) one of the best "roll yer own" distros out there. I've seen a serious Slackware enthusiast take a university lab full of old Dell PIII-933's with 128MB RAM, and turn them into something worthy of XP Pro with all the bells and whistles. This would include font smoothing (AKA ClearType in XP) and even recognition of the generic scroll wheel/3rd mouse button function. Fantastic. But -alas- it took a pro/guru to manage this. Sigh.
-Gentoo is another excellent "roll your own" distro, with (yet another) variant of how to update. In Gentoo's case, the magic bullet is "emerge." This parallels the Debian method, but for the whole system. Updating a particular package (say Mozilla) involves nothing more complex than typing "emerge Mozilla." If you want to update your entire system, type "emerge update." Very nice!
While I'm thinking about it, one of the sites not yet mentioned is www.linuxiso.org. Recommended.
-Kevin Murphy flies in the face of over 20 years of user preferences when he says "I would avoid Linspire, not for any quality reason, but because it attempts to hide Linux behind a Windows facade."
Alas, he doesn't explain just why this is bad. I would ask him if he drives a stick shift, or automatic transmission. After that, I would ask him if he manually tunes the crystals in his AM reciever, or if he's a HAM radio operator who regularly practices ditty-bopping.
In other words: most normal human beings prefer insulation from the gritty details. How many internet users can explain the difference between baud and bits per second, much less how various frequency modulations affect the actual transfer rate of their 56K modem? Most just want to "do" stuff, not worry about the plumbing.
Ok, let's get back to basics. Andrew wants a Linux distro he can "just use." Apparently he doesn't like KDE or Gnome.
This realisticallyi limits his choices to three possibilities:
-1) Lindows/Linspire.
-2) Xandros.
-3) Apple.
As others have pointed out, Lindows/Linspire is great, except that you need to keep supscription to their online database current. If you ever let the susscription expire, you WILL NOT be able to even re-install programs you had previously installed. NOT GOOD. DOUBLE SQUARED. I used to be a Linspire supporter until they changed to that rule. :(((
Xandros has garnered as many good reviews as Linspire, but I haven't personally tried it yet. On the plus side, they don't insist on a subscription to download updates.
Honestly, the best way to upgrade to a genuinely easy-to-use *NIX style system is buy an Apple. Again, Siggy has it right, and I've been eyeing the used iMacs on eBay lately. It isn't to hard to get a nice used system (I would go at least a low-end G4 myself) and there's even a Computers/Software/Apple/Operating Systems (to paraphrase) category, so you can even get OS 10.3.x without too much money. Just make sure the hardware you get supports OS X.
What I want/need is MS Office/Mac, if I switch. The formats are just too deeply embedded right now.
Another possiblity for those thinking of upgrading is the new Mini Mac, as long as you aren't a gamer....
Not exactly a Linux box, but the Fink package system is .deb-based, so it gets all (well, most) of the advantages of Debian's excellent package management.
If you specifically want Linux, well, OS X isn't Linux. But when you add Fink, it's close enough that I do almost *all* my work on OS X these days.
Not that I've ever tried out Ubuntu myself; though I'd like to, if my time, energy, and computer weren't so heavily given over to Mandrake. It's just that I've read so many rave reviews of Ubuntu. User-friendly. Debian-based. GNOME desktop. Works smoothly. And did I say user-friendly?