Arch Linux, Gentoo, Slackware, FreeBSD, OpenBSD. 
Is that an "in order from not for newbies to totally insane batsh*t crazy" list?
must be, if bsd is at the far end of the scale.
What are the advantages that Linux has over Windows exactly. I have heard that Linux is a lot better than Windows but I do not yet have the knowledge of what Linux can do to know why it is better. Could someone please tell me what are the advantages and disadvantages if you don't mind.
i tried Gentoo, Mandrake, Redhat and FreeBSD back in the day
rly cant be arsed to install linux anymore, u WILL need windows for some things anyways
but yea i think Ubuntu would be best choice now
i prefer gnome, but its just what ur used to i guess
rly cant be arsed to install linux anymore, u WILL need windows for some things anyways
but yea i think Ubuntu would be best choice now
i prefer gnome, but its just what ur used to i guess
Advantages:
Fast installation
Fast boot-up time
No need for antivirus, since anything downloaded cannot execute unless you chmod it.
Easy to repair if you mis-configure something
Uses less disk space
Different display managers, looks are incredibly customizable
Repositories full of great software
Open source
FREE!
No blue screens of death
Most updates don't require a restart except for graphics drivers and the like
I am going to use both Linux and Windows
I will install Wine which lets you run Windows Applications.Cheers
Are there any others guys. Some installations are a pain though, like installing wifi adapters. Was skimming through the other day on how to do it, just have to sit down now and try and install the wifi adapter lol, not all are supported are they?linux is FREE, more stable than windows (if u use it as a server anyways), more cpu-efficient, free programs (pretty good substitutes for win software mostly), alot more configurable
it is however, harder to use / install
altho some distros are pretty noob-friendly nowadays
@sam
dual booting is annoying
and wine doesnt run all windows apps, and can be buggy on the ones it does runonly reason for me to install linux again, is when i should buy a second pc
Just some random thoughts
Pros: distros with good package managers are way easier to keep up to date than Windows (one centralized resource rather than windows update + a zillion different websites/programs to maintain); no need for an antivirus/antimalware/whatever, no real time check means snappier operation and no time wasted with routinary scans; no need for defragmenting (I love this one
); safer, security holes are fixed much more quickly than Windows (with MS it takes a couple of months if you're lucky). 64-bit support is almost perfect which means some programs are faster. For some type of applications, there's actually more choice than under Windows (e.g. free non-linear video editors). Extremely customizable. Wine allows you to run many common Windows programs with little inconvenience and more or less the same performance. Infinitely cheaper than Windows.Cons, GNU/Linux being a patchwork of different software, user interfaces are not always coherent or as polished as you would like; there are several different standards for storing options, managing configuration files etc. This situation has been steadily worked on and has been improving over the years, and one could argue Windows is not completely free from this kind of issues anyway. Stumbling in the wrong distro can be quite a disappointing/frustrating experience. Fixing some problems, sometimes, can take quite some time and effort, but tends to run smoothly forever afterwards. For some type of applications, you simply don't have as much choice than Windows. Hardware support is not as complete and up-to-date as Windows, so linux users still have the habit to check compatibility and quality of drivers/support before getting new stuff.
That's certainly far from complete. Just what I could come up with in about 5 minutes.
Actually, the only updates which require a restart are those concerning the kernel. My linux box has been up for 85 days as of now.
Why do you think dual booting is annoying?
Well, if you have to take down X on your desktop system you might as well call it a reboot. It may not technically be one, but your apps are going down.
That's not really a reboot though. Restarting X takes all of 5 seconds, whereas a reboot would take at least two minutes. And, can't you save the session, which will automatically re-load all the applications you had running?
I am trying to install Ubuntu along side Windows but for some strange reason it wants to use the whole drive and not the free space?
I think it is going to repartition my drive and not make new partitions.
I am using the Live CD to install, would it make a difference if I used the alternate cd?
Why is this?
I think it is going to repartition my drive and not make new partitions.
I am using the Live CD to install, would it make a difference if I used the alternate cd?
Why is this?
It asks you if you want to use the whole drive or just a part of it. You obviously have to select the appropriate option.
I did, but even if I pressed manual or to use the free space (Unallocated) it still says that it will use 100% of the hard drive.
easiest way is to put it on a drive by itself... those gui partitioners blow.
The only thing is, the only spare hard drive I have is failing lol.
...with Windows running place the CD in the drive and the auto run will guide you through and allow you install inside windows
Yes, you can use Wubi - makes life easier in terms of dual booting. If you like it enough you can always use LVPM to transfer it to a real partition instead of the loopback (ie - inside a file) one created by Wubi
To make it a brief comment: "GNU/Linux is NOT Windows, simply never will be"
...if you prefer a little more letters to tell you why:
Windows has evolved from a simple name of a graphical user interface covering the most common file-operations under (MS)DOS, then was used as a name for a graphical application layer building upon DOS, then used for an integrated operating system, still based on DOS but with the graphical part now representing the "standard shell" (read: Windows 95, 98, 98SE, Millennium), then being used as the name for an all-new operating system designed to be network-capable rather than only network-aware and based on an entirely new "new-technology" native-32bit-system-kernel, thus they attached the two letters "NT" to it which - quite frankly - laid out the foundation for all the versions that are still in wide-spread use today.
Nowerdays Windows - as used in actual tounge - refers to a whole so-called "platform", including software object-code libraries, multimedia-layers and so forth, the Direct-X package being one of the more relevant to home-PC-users such as gamers.
Linux (or better say GNU/Linux) has nothing to do with any of those. It is in itself a "Unix"-Clone, relying heavily on the GNU-foundation's /-networks system tools that were modelled after what was once an operating system developed and owned by some nerds at AT&T (?). However, Unix-rights went from one owner to another quite a few times, resulting in an endless quarrel who would be the final legitimate owner of the thing. It was, although a commercial product, mostly an open-source one, meaning when it was further and further developed, people could actually have a peek at all it's core source-code. Hence all the relevant APIs and such were "open knowledge". That's not to say they were "public domain" or anything.
So that was the reason why the GNU-people could actually copy the behaviour of all the basic tools needed - and finally make them compatible (read: interchangeable) with the original system-kernels. They were up to recode all that stuff because they wanted a truly open development platform targeted at all people that was free to change up to it's core. Now all they needed was a piece of free (as in spirit) software that made it actually run without the need of an original system-kernel: That's were Linus Torvalds filled in the gap with his home-brew "Linux"-kernel.
Nowadays though, people just say "Linux" when referring to a whole unit consisting of system-kernel, system-tools (and even tend to include the usual widespread software packages into the equation) -- which all-together make up "a distribution", in short "distro".
Sounds amazing? Well it is. But the most amazing stuff is: it is not Windows. It has a little different way of how you use it. And each distro will have it's own go at how they present the package to the main user or administrator. What they all have in common, however, is that the productive software packages they include is mostly free software designed by the same people, just delivered in a slightly different fashion to fit the specific management tools, that the distributors decide to use on their distros. So users of any of them they can mostly (read: up to app. 95%) interchange user-generated data and work on/with that, as long as all people involved keep their systems reasonably up-to-date (or alternatively at the same development-level).
As for the sources: Anyone can adapt pieces of software made to fit one distro, to install and run on another. AND it is (mostly, as I said) all "free" software which means you can alter your installation and even a/the specific program itself - and if you whish just make a different install disc with the altered software and distribute your own, derived distro. Only some commercial distributors still use their own closed-source and non-free software-tools (mostly user-friendly installation-wizards and further subsystem-management-tools) that build upon their systems. So naturally, those specific tools&programs would be excluded from any sub-alteration, sub-redistribution (and then, that stuff is usually not supplied in an open-source fashion, read: "binary-only").
If you want to find out more, just browse some of the better-known websites/forums or -that would be my suggestion- get yourself a good all-round introductory book from your local bookshop's shelf. O'Reilly has some very good ones, so does Addison-Wesley. AND MANY OTHERS, too. That should lower the threshold of finally getting into the subject for a good deal. I would highly recommend to at least read a small bit before you go and install anything on your primary computer. Although most modern distributions handle most systems painlessly, there is always the chance of running into problems you didn't even know they even existed - when you are a complete newbie that hasn't got great computer skills AND KNOWLEDGE in the first place.
Overall conclusion: Linux is a different approach to a network-capable, multi-tasking & multi-user (-capable) operating system that is not only limited to PCs but all sorts of likewise functioning modern (and sometimes older out-of-production) hardware. Most-likely 5 out of 10 NAT-type internet-router-devices run a simplyfied version of it with a small web-server providing a browser-based set-up tool on a down-sized piece of hardware vastly different to any intel-PC in design and/or architecture. Since it is all available in source you can get it to run on virtually anything.
Well at least some guys can. At least I can't.
I am simply just an average user who likes using it. Ubuntu for me, too, after some years of SuSE, Debian and stuff. It actually runs better on my old laptop than the supplied Windows ever did. But I still dual-boot for reasons like Live for Speed. Sometimes you just can't get away from it
I use Gparted Live CD to manage any partitions. In sam's case also it would be simple to boot GParted and format an ext3 and swap partition and then boot manually install Ubuntu on that partition. A fat16 partition in between the NTFS and EXT partitions makes life easyer too for sharing etc...
What is Wubi? Sorry I barely know anything about Linux.
I know you can put the disk in and chose whether to install it as an application inside windows, to install it along side windows or to install is as the only operating system.
I want it to have it's seperate partition and not to be an application inside Windows.
I am a bit stuck lol.
This is what my partitions are like atm:
http://www.lfsforum.net/attach ... mp;stc=1&d=1231802020
I know you can put the disk in and chose whether to install it as an application inside windows, to install it along side windows or to install is as the only operating system.
I want it to have it's seperate partition and not to be an application inside Windows.
I am a bit stuck lol.
This is what my partitions are like atm:
http://www.lfsforum.net/attach ... mp;stc=1&d=1231802020
Wubi simply speaks to Windows and tells it to make a folder within the NTFS partition for use for Ubuntu.
As I said above Gparted is a boot cd that allows easy management of partitions, For a Windows and Ubuntu dual boot you need:
[---NTFS(windows) partition]----[Ext3(Ubuntu partition)]---[swapfile partition ~700mb]
If you segregate and format those(ext3 and swap)partitions in free space on the HD Ubuntu can then be booted and installed manually leaving a dual boot.
I'm a diehard Debian user. Been using it for 5 years now. Fully customizable and contrary to popular belief, it IS quite n00b friendly. Also contrary to popular belief, the Debian testing distro is completely up to date.
Try it out, if you like ubuntu, no reason you wouldn't like debian.
Good luck with linux, it's great fun!
Try it out, if you like ubuntu, no reason you wouldn't like debian.
Good luck with linux, it's great fun!
Linux
(95 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG