Reading Linux

I can't beleive it. No distro has ever done it.

UBUNTU DROVE ME NUTS IN 20 MINUTES FLAT!

That's right, in 20 minutes, I saw my hardware not work, root inaccessible, etc. I didn't stay using it much longer, but I did realize it wasn't meant for me. It booted quickly, in fact, quicker than gentoo if i read it right, but when it ran, it was just horrid. Great for those who want a less involved experience, but I am an admitted ricer, I NEED GENTOO!

I should be ashamed of myself.

Reading your review makes me want to try it out :]

REALLY :]

time to d/l and install...

if you want fast booting system try arch linux. it kicks off *really* fast. it's like debian on i686 with package management.

root inaccessible

i heard you have to do
sudo passwd root
to make it accessible

"Life is a queue. You come in, hang around for a bit, get some service, then depart."

This post was edited by yoshi314 on Jun 11, 2005.

Now hold up here. Ubuntu Linux 5.04 is really damn good, I loaded it on a Celeron 566 and tried it out for a week. I was seriously impressed by it's quick and painless installation. It was clearly the easiest installation I've ran accross! I did not have any of the problems Aynjell had.

Oh and Ubuntu by default is Gnome based. Kubuntu on the other hand has KDE as it's default desktop. So if you like regular window managers be prepared to load that and set it up after installation.

This post was edited by majic on Jun 11, 2005.

[your distro here] by default is Gnome based.
[your distro here] by default is KDE based.
[................] by default is ..... based.
-----------------------------------------------
argh. that's what i don't like about some distros. especially SuSE and YoPER ("KDE is the best and zap the rest") :/

i have gentoo and i'm happy with it. i've been compiling it from the very bottom to the desktop of my choice :] (which _are_ fluxbox, xfce, kde, gnome, afterstep, e17, windowmaker, fvwm2-crystal,rox. usually i stick with xfce and fluxbox though)

well it's not like i don't like ubuntu. i like it's philosophy (100% free , up-to-date-686 debian :] ). i might try it someday. hope it's not focused on gnome like SuSE is on KDE :/

but i already ran across a neat 686-really-up-to-date binary distro called Arch Linux. it's almost as up-to-date as gentoo [really, new packages pop up really fast], and package manager has feature to install your packages from source if you really want it that bad. it has repositories like debian/ubuntu, and similar installer to apt, called pacman :>
----------------------------------------------------------------
still, it looks like the only way for me is gentoo of LFS :/ i'm doomed :]

"Life is a queue. You come in, hang around for a bit, get some service, then depart."

You can't blame distros for being KDE based. If you want to compete on the desktop with MacOS and XP, it's the only route to go. Gnome and GTK look like crap out of the box and the rest of the WMs are either too minimalist and meant for power users (Fluxbox, Enlightenment, Sawfish, etc.) or just aren't pretty enough (Xfce).

I'm running Kubuntu right now. Works great out of the box. If you want a distribution that contrasts well with your Gentoo experience, try SuSe. It's very good at setting everything up for you.

I used Gentoo for a long time, but finally got fed up with the long compile times and the, "set everything up yourself" philosophy of the distribution. Setting up software myself was fascinating when I first started using linux, but now I know it's a mostly boring task of juggling a bunch of random text files in random locations with inconsistent syntax. Also worthy of note, with prelink enabled, I see no difference in performance between Gentoo and other distributions.

I tried SuSe after gentoo but got fed up with its package management, which just wasn't as easy as on Gentoo. Kubuntu's is better, but still not as good (or I haven't figured out how to use apt well enough yet, but it's just not as simple as the all in one tool: emerge). Package selection isn't as good either.

Argh, when will the distro makers learn that packaging is the giant enchilada holding them back? There should be a standard.

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts, for you will never go any higher than you think."

It's very good at setting everything up for you.

That's what i dislike - os doing something i don't know about. I realized it when i used to work with mandrake. When something broke i had no idea where to start. And usually i used ultimate-windows-fix-method : Reinstall from scratch :/

Everything looks awful out of the box, but if you give it some attention it starts to be cool after all. :]

"Life is a queue. You come in, hang around for a bit, get some service, then depart."

I never knew how to put it into words, but Yoshi hit teh nail right on it's flat, slightly gripped head.

As for XFCE not being pretty enouygh, my XFCE desktop would be easier to use and make users more at home than KDE any day. Granted, kde has desktop icons, but uh, xfce is different. It does EVERYTHING I could have wanted my desktop to do. As for windows users using linux, I hope to god that doesn't happen. Linux deserves to remain reserved for power users, and gamers seeking an edge.

Lastly, I'm sorry to hear you were fascinated with config files. I never was, I was always diggin' the speed. My system can outperform yours any day. Prelink + reiser4 + well compiled apps - cruft beats your canned OS any day. Period, end of story. _AND_ I get a good package manager. That's what I'm here for, because I need teh ability to fsck with those config files, they make my experience more the way I want it. That's why I use linux, I get what i want. And that's half of gentoo's philosophy!

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 12, 2005.

That's what i dislike - os doing something i don't know about. I realized it when i used to work with mandrake. When something broke i had no idea where to start. And usually i used ultimate-windows-fix-method : Reinstall from scratch :/

I felt that way when I started to. What I liked about Gentoo was that it didn't really do anything for me without me telling it to, so I began to get an idea of where things came from on a linux system. But now that I've had that experience, I feel at home in other distrobutions.

As for XFCE not being pretty enouygh, my XFCE desktop would be easier to use and make users more at home than KDE any day. Granted, kde has desktop icons, but uh, xfce is different. It does EVERYTHING I could have wanted my desktop to do.

It's great that you think that. But you're not giving any reasons why. When I first came over from XP, KDE was the closest to what I knew, and it was the easiest to use. I tried Gnome, but it was missing obvious control panel options and didn't look as good. XFCE was decent, but just didn't end up being suited to my tastes, and still doesn't look as good as KDE. XFCE is GTK+ based. It has a nice GTK+ theme. But the QT toolkit at the moment is way ahead of GTK+ in the Not Looking Like Crap department. (definitely can change in the future though)

As for windows users using linux, I hope to god that doesn't happen. Linux deserves to remain reserved for power users, and gamers seeking an edge.

What did you use before Linux? OMGZORZ you were a winblowz user! LEAVE! If you're using a computer, and you're not using linux, you're using SOMETHING. New linux users have to come from somewhere.

And no, linux doesn't "deserve" to be reserved for "power users" and "gamers seeking an edge." The first is dumb because it's a Good Thing (TM) for computers to become easier to use -- that means more time spent doing what you want instead of tinkering (unless you want to tinker, but there's no threat of that ever going away on Linux).

As for "gamers seeking an edge," that's dumb because linux hardly plays any games. They're still all made for windows. The only "edge" you're going to get is the 5 fps drop from having to run Counterstrike under WINE. In order for there to be a market for Linux games big enough for people to start making Linux native games, those Windows gamers are going to have to convert over. BUT OMGZORZ THEYRE TEH WINBLOWZ UZERZ!

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts, for you will never go any higher than you think."

This post was edited by Tetrazome on Jul 12, 2005.

I felt that way when I started to. What I liked about Gentoo was that it didn't really do anything for me without me telling it to, so I began to get an idea of where things came from on a linux system. But now that I've had that experience, I feel at home in other distrobutions.

well i tried other distros. but i feel something is missing :] when i install kde, for example it installs tons of dependencies. and i can't do anything about it, except doing a manual compile. but that's what i had gentoo for, right? :D i just can't get accomodated to predefined dependencies anymore, and if my binary linux distro has to use from-source compilation, well, i'm going back to gentoo :D

As for XFCE not being pretty enouygh, my XFCE desktop would be easier to use and make users more at home than KDE any day. Granted, kde has desktop icons, but uh, xfce is different. It does EVERYTHING I could have wanted my desktop to do.

yeah xfce is fast and has all the necesary stuff. think about it - pretty desktop with low memory usage. a wonderful tradeoff for mind-blowing eye candy which does not perform to well on 256mb ram average cpu system.

some people just need their desktop to work. they want their office suite to launch quickly so they can get to work. from that point of view all those fireworks are really annoying. when you want to do somethnig quickly all this eye-candy becomes a nuisance.

When I first came over from XP, KDE was the closest to what I knew, and it was the easiest to use. I tried Gnome, but it was missing obvious control panel options and didn't look as good.

gnome and kde are both easy to use, they share the same features (like removable media management etc.)
gnome however is more lightweight - it works fine with 128mb system, whereas kde has trouble even at 256mb. that's because GTK/GTK2 is more lightweight library compared to Qt. most GTK/GTK2 programs take way less ram (maybe except firefox :D) than Qt ones. (i use an Qt-based IM program that eats away 122mb ram!)

Linux deserves to remain reserved for power users, and gamers seeking an edge.

it's all about choice in open source, remember? everyone should have a choice. people uncomfortable with linux should go for knoppix/mandriva/pclinuxOS or suse/xandros. intermediates - ubuntu,redhat,fedora,arch linux, etc . people ready for trouble - gentoo,debian,LFS,etc.

What did you use before Linux? OMGZORZ you were a winblowz user! LEAVE! If you're using a computer, and you're not using linux, you're using SOMETHING. New linux users have to come from somewhere.

that's the same with gentoo. most gentoo users are mandrake converts. how would you feel if someone would say: "ex-mandrakers not allowed! go fsck yourself." or if someone would make fun of you just because you use distribution X and not Y. ("you're so lame, because you don't use this and that. and on top of that you work on an stock kernel. bwahahaha! i use reiser4 and super-experimental cko-sources,sux0r!)"

linux should be a friendly world for newbies, just as gentoo forums,propably the friendliest community on The Net itself, are. if linux were so l33t we would not have too many users.

recently Eric Raymond, fetchmail author, and author of some great writings on open source ( http://www.catb.org/~esr/ ) totally bashed CUPS (linux printing system) authors for it being not too friendly to not-cups-guru users. he could not figure out how to setup a remote printer access via cups on his computer. it took him a few days to get things working.

he has a point there. if everything would be so d*mn unfriendly in linux, nobody would use it. because noone would know where to start. and newbies would soon give up.

"Life is a queue. You come in, hang around for a bit, get some service, then depart."

This post was edited by yoshi314 on Jul 13, 2005.

What did you use before Linux? OMGZORZ you were a winblowz user! LEAVE! If you're using a computer, and you're not using linux, you're using SOMETHING. New linux users have to come from somewhere.

I'm talking about the mainstream. I'm talking about the userbase we'd gain if linux took over microsoft's place in the market. I'm talking about the people who "Only use a computer to check thier email". Those people who have no moral or intellectual interest in linux and open source technology. I'm talking about WINDOWS uses. Not people who have grown into linux, but hte people who couldn't figure out linux if it bit them in the butt. Those people who COULDN'T appreciate it. I'm talking about windows users.

And I agree, no peice of software should require you to be a guru to use it especially when it's not supposed to be highly technical, such as in teh cups arena.

Anyway, this is a difference in opinion: I don't think people who have no interest in not using windows or finding better software should be forced into using linux, because windows has it's place, and i am happy for that. I could explain that if you like.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 13, 2005.