Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: sigtau on March 23, 2012, 10:22:38 pm
-
A few nights ago, Installed Linux Mint it on my laptop that just wasn't quite good enough for any 3D or game design work. Works great as a large, weighty, overglorified netbook now (and runs considerably more efficiently, albeit having a few quirks here and there). I'm interested in hearing you guys' thoughts on using Linux as a desktop OS, rather than keeping it reserved for servers (currently, I run a home IRC server on the latest release of Debian--and it runs quite efficiently).
The only thing holding me from using any flavour of Linux on my main desktop machine--where I am most of the time--is the fact that Linux just isn't cut out for anything even remotely 3D related for the time being. It is, however, imperative that I have at least one Linux computer around for coding/testing purposes, in addition to the fact that it means that--if my parents keep their promise of getting me a MacBook Pro as my university laptop--I will never again be fazed by incompatibility :P
But back on topic, what's you guys' take on Linux (any distribution, really) as a desktop OS?
-
I have Opensuse as my desktop's backup OS, the primary OS on 2 laptops, and in a VM for VMware's Unity, primarily for just dicking around.
I also have a few versions of linux that I keep on USB sticks, SD cards, and microSD cards, for when I need to jack a public computer for a little while. They're good enough to get MC working if the hardware is willing, which is good enough for me.
While I don't use it as a primary OS (because I play games most of the time), it does, for me, have its place on desktops as the ultimate recovery tool, and older computers as a nice light weight web browsing OS that I know guests can't break :D
-
My spare laptop runs Linux Ubuntu and I have my primary laptop dual-booting Win7/Linux Mint. Any time I'm not gaming, I'm on Linux. It takes some getting used to if you aren't old enough to have ever used DOS (I got my first computer right as Windows 3.1 came out), but I find it growing on me more and more as I use it. Most old games will even run in Wine these days, and I use mostly open-source programs that also happen to be compatible (LibreOffice, Inkscape for vector graphics, GIMP for raster, etc.).
-
I'd use linux if I didn't also use my PC for gaming. 3D hardware acceleration on GPU's is quirky at best though, but usually older GPU's have relatively little issues while still having more than enough power for any apps that can utilize hardware acceleration. In case of laptops linux often trails far behind of Windows or OS X in terms of power management, linux kernel had some huge regressions in that regard last year. I haven't followed up on it, so I don't know if those regressions have been fixed properly yet.
If your requirements to use windows only apps are little, you may want to check Wine HQ website whether those apps can be run under Wine. If everything checks out, have fun with linux.
-
i went through more than a couple linux phases. ive tried fedora, various ubuntu distros, some more portable oses like slax. and while i do like to use linux for for troubleshooting hardware and i like programming under linux, the os is nothing but a massive time sink when used to run basic applications. i couldnt get on my network because the wifi thingie i was using wasnt done yet and didnt support my encryption. i ended up hard wiring into my router. i couldnt run some hardware, like my trackir for example. its not bad for gaming provided your game supports linux. and if you are like me youve amassed a huge collection of essential windows applications, and when you go to linux you usually have to learn all new software from scratch and getting it to run under wine sucks. im also not fond of oses that brute force too much security on the user. theres nothing on my rig id be worried about somone else getting ahold of, and i backup regularly. so security has never really been an issue for me. i mean this isnt the ****ing cia, its my cave in the woods.
actually im looking forward for when reactos goes beta. supports windows applications and drivers out of the box, without all the ms bull**** that comes with it.
-
Used Fedora almost exclusively for four years now. Only boot into windows for games, and sometimes Netflix (I use a vm for Netflix usually). The biggest issues I've had have revolved around video drivers. AMD's (officially sanctioned) open drivers are very stable, but slow, their closed drivers are fast, but very buggy. nVidia's closed divers are superb, and there are signs the open nouveau drivers may be getting back door support from nVidia. Only other issues I've really run up against fall back on selinux being paranoid, but that's fixed with a quick setenforce 0 as root.
I've become very comfortable with the Linux environment over the years, and I can't see myself going back now. If it weren't for games and Netflix, I wouldn't have a windows partition. I'm not into any serious AV, and that's probably one of Linux's weakest points.
-
Well, I haven't had a windows desktop installed since 98SE days, no troubles at all. But then again, I don't need a broad range of sw, and nothing *specific* or too eccentric.
-
Linux is pretty good. Using linux mint debian. I dual booted for a long time. Then i just switched entirely back in 2008. It serves my purposes and needs fairly well. The only troubles i've really had were windows specific utilities like printer firmware updaters and stuff of the same like (stuff that basically will not run in linux period).
Perhaps i should keep a virtual machine around. But, i won't do that since i wont spend money on windows. So i'm not going to use a pirated copy of windows in a virtual machine. When i switched to linux, i did it with the full intention of never needing to use windows again. For the most part, i don't need to, and this is true. It does however get annoying when i have to fix someones printer with a firmware updater that will only run in windows where the printer was installed (**** like that gets annoying).
-
printer firmware updaters
Also drivers. Avoid lexmark at all costs.
-
It's horrible when a dependency for one of their drivers is only found on the lexmark thailand website or whatever.
-
I run Windows on most of my boxes, but have Mint 12 KDE as the main OS on my C-50 based laptop. Most of the regressions in power management were on Sandy Bridge, so the battery life is still fair, if about 20 minutes shorter than in 7. My laptop as a linux box works, because it basically only gets used for Office (2007 installs fairly cleanly in Wine - or at least Word, Excel, and Powerpoint do), Chromium, music, and programming. The AMD GPU drivers are flaky at best, though, and are needed to get video working reasonably since it only has a 1 gHz dual core.
-
Laptop mode tools anyone? If it's normal spinning magnetic hard drive, then you can easily get way more battery than in windows. Doesn't work for solid state drives however. I just wish i could do a lot more with windows power settings, just doing as much as the kde power settings manager would be great.
-
Linux is pretty good. Using linux mint debian. I dual booted for a long time. Then i just switched entirely back in 2008. It serves my purposes and needs fairly well. The only troubles i've really had were windows specific utilities like printer firmware updaters and stuff of the same like (stuff that basically will not run in linux period).
Perhaps i should keep a virtual machine around. But, i won't do that since i wont spend money on windows. So i'm not going to use a pirated copy of windows in a virtual machine. When i switched to linux, i did it with the full intention of never needing to use windows again. For the most part, i don't need to, and this is true. It does however get annoying when i have to fix someones printer with a firmware updater that will only run in windows where the printer was installed (**** like that gets annoying).
you might be able to do a live cd boot of the reactos alpha. some of the windows only utilities might work under that os.
-
Linux as a desktop OS? Based on my personal experience, I could sum it up as this: A money saver, an amazing enabler, and not for everybody.
Allow me to explain what I mean. Software piracy in Argentina is pretty much the norm rather than the exception. Microsoft knows it and doesn't gives a **** as long as they can put the pressure on the government and the private companies to make themselves a profit. But they pretty much know that they can't possibly expect individuals with 2nd world salaries to pay for their dollar-priced OS and software, so they happily look the other way as long as they can generate a dependency on their products.*
Me? I still don't like the deal, since I find it dirty and humiliating, so I do my best to avoid piracy. So I dual-boot between Ubuntu (primary OS), and a Win 7 Starter + Office Starter running mostly with open source and freeware (secondary OS). Were it not for Linux, I wouldn't be able to afford staying on the legal side (which around here is, again, more of a moral posture than a legal necessity for home users), since I would need a REAL OS, and not a Starter version.
I have to admit, I actually love Win 7. It's amazing, stable, fast, easy to use, reasonably backwards-compatible, everything a Windows OS should have been from the beginning. I just wish it could be more affordable.
I'd use linux if I didn't also use my PC for gaming.
Yeah, I know. I find Linux lacking in games (but I don't really have the time to do much gaming, if any), and very specialized software (which I have no use for). But I guess if you do use those programs, or if you're a hardcore gamer, Linux may not be for you.
printer firmware updaters
Also drivers. Avoid lexmark at all costs.
Regarding drivers and hardware recognition, my personal experience has been far better with Linux than with Windows. I guess I've been lucky.
*: Which they are quite successful at doing. High Schools and even many universities demand that you learn and use Microsoft Office and Windows, but they won't buy you a copy. This is, in a country where the government has the constitutional obligation to provide you with everything you may need for your education, free of cost. They actually expect you to pirate it, and will look at you as if you were some kind of dangerous alien if you dare to tell them you have moral concerns with that.
-
I've been dual-booting Linux and WinDOwS for a while now. I've used Mandriva (used to be Mandrake), Ubuntu, and now Mint. I like Linux, and actually would prefer to use it, except Windows 7 is pretty darn comfortable, and unfortunately, many programs require you to use Windows (Steam for Linux? Ha).
The only thing I don't like about Linux is, if you break something in GUI mode, there is not 'safe mode' that runs in GUI... you're at the command prompt. Have fun (oh boy).. they seriously should consider putting fail-safe default copies of settings files to use to that you can go back in GUI and undo your mistakes (settings restore points would also be nice). I mean, it sucks to re-install the entire OS because you don't know where the darn setting file is for the graphics mode and you made a mistake and set it wrong and now the GUI won't start.
-
Linux as a desktop OS? Based on my personal experience, I could sum it up as this: A money saver, an amazing enabler, and not for everybody.
I think you explained it best for me on my end too.
Regarding drivers and hardware recognition, my personal experience has been far better with Linux than with Windows. I guess I've been lucky.
Many things work directly out of the box. If not, there's usually included utilities to get things to work easily such as proprietary driver downloads. If not either of those, dmesg, lspci, lsusb, etc (i just use hardinfo most of the time though) is a great command for identifying hardware without needing to rip open a computer to see what's inside and then get drivers for windows or linux (in linux there's a couple of ways to get stuff working with a lot of tweaking if not supported out of the box, or if not supported at all). There's two big reasons i always make sure to have a capable live cd when i work on windows computers.
1. Very easy manual backups. Just plug in a backup drive, and copy everything without needing to worry about files in use under windows.
2. Hardware identification in linux. Not whether or not linux can make something work. It just makes the search for windows drivers much easier when device manager will only tell you "unknown device" (since stuff like brand and product name really helps with driver hunting).
-
FYI, for drivers, you can always make universal driver install discs using DriverPacks.net (http://DriverPacks.net) - they support almost any hardware you can think of. You can either make one big install disk (or folder on an external drive, like I do); or, you can make separate folders for each category: Display, Mobile Display, PhysX, Audio, LAN, WLAN, Mass Storage, Cardreaders, CPU, Chipset, Touchpad/Mouse, Modem, Webcam, TVcard, Miscellaneous
Make sure you get the latest (unless you need an old one), correct version of the driverpack (x86 / x64 and Win 2K/XP/2K3 or Vista/7)
You have to get the application to make the driverpacks work.
Sorry for the mini-hijack. If anyone's got questions, let me know and I'll make a new thread about it, but DriverPacks.net has their own forums so you could always ask there.
-
It is sort of a hard-light (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?board=19.0) hijack. But, thx for the info. this will make life a lot easier. I will keep a dvd-rw for rewrite available.
The only time this gets ****ed up is when you need to slipstream drivers without much if any documentation. Had to do that for somebody with an hp dv6. Where the laptop came with vista with a bios that didn't let you select sata compatibility mode. Pain in the ass finding the driver to slipstream. It was interesting using nlite, but i find the power of remastering a linux livecd to be much greater.
Should i upload my linux mint 9 remaster? It's pretty darn multipurpose. Well, what i want to do is make a remaster of linux mint debian with their latest service pack and the updated repositories with the software that i believe makes an awesome livecd to install or just use as a livecd. Unfortunately, i like remastersys and how well it integrates with the ubuntu installer. However, for debian distributions which it is compatible with makes you use it's own installer which sucks balls. Looking for an alternative.
-
You are aware of Hiren's Boot Disk (http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7005197/Hiren_s_Boot_15.1_Rebuild_by_DLC_v2.0), right? And FalconFour's (http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6238607/FalconFour_s_Ultimate_Boot_CD_USB_4.5_-_Hiren_s_13.0) (which I prefer), which is based off of Hiren's?
-
I must ask for clarification what are the boot disks intended for?
-
Multi-tool. Pretty much a Swiss Army knife. Boot Mini XP, live Linux, do Anti-Virus scans, reset Windows password, do memory patch of Windows or Linux kernel in memory to boot without password as any user, do mem test scans, hard disk scans, clone hard disk, etc, etc.
-
Oh ok, cool.
-
one redeeming factor for linux is can run on anything, where as windows vista/7 drew a line in the sand and said they wont run hardware lesser than this. sure you can dig up an old windows and use that. linux lets you stay modern on archaic hardware. case in point (and the reason i posted this) you can run ubuntu on an emulated arm processor running on an $8 microcontroller (at a whopping 6.5 khz):
http://hackaday.com/2012/03/28/building-the-worst-linux-pc-ever/
theres even a 3 and a half hour video of the boot process!
-
@Nuke; vLite FTW (for Vista/7; use nLite for XP)
Running XP on a 486 with 32MB RAM... heh, not worth much. Seeing people's jaw drop.. priceless. ;7 It is useful in certain situations, for example, 233MHz Celeron, 96MB RAM, needs to go on the Internetz... using nLite + XP is actually less trouble than trying to hack '98 or 2K up to snuff to go online.
-
ive used that before, managed to get a pc to boot xp only using a 2gb cf card for storage. of course it sucked that i couldnt install much in terms of software. so i got a 16 gb cf card instead. still i only use it as my porn computer. its probably loaded with viruses by now. would probably be better off running a linux though.
but anyway say you want vista or 7 that can run on a computer with less than 1gb of ram (usually even less than 521 megs). most of the time the installer just freezes up. linux is quite at home on these systems. even modern distros.
-
Hmm, less than 1GB won't boot ubuntu IIRC (at least it won't boot the linux-based BitDefender live CD...) but maybe I'm mistaking that for 512MB... people run **** for RAM and then wonder why their computer runs slow and the hard drive fries every 3 years (swap file thrashing)... they whine about paying $50 to clean it up, and won't pay $100 extra to upgrade the RAM to 2GB (or more if it's not old DDR RAM). And they wonder why it takes so long to fix... It's cause computers without enough memory to even boot the OS without resorting to using the swap file are going to run like absolute ****. Hello! ... sorry, /rant.. Anyways, people who opted to upgrade to 2GB are very happily using their computers with performance mostly on par with a new cheapo box you could get from Walmart for $399.
-
but you miss the point i was trying to make. that a linux distro will run on older hardware than a generation equivalent windows. sure 256 megs is **** for ram today, but in the late 90s through the early 00's, it was still common to see low end machines in the 265-512 range. i put 1gb in my 2003 rig, and upped it to 2gb, and the machine still runs fine (under win7 even). when you have old hardware, and want to do something with it (other than doorstop), but dont want to use a legacy os, then linux is pretty much your only choice. unlike most people i like old hardware. and if i do employ a piece of ancient hardware its typically for some hackish project of mine. regardless of how slow it is it can still do math faster than you can.
also the reason the ubuntu live cd doesnt run with a tiny bit of ram is because most of it is used as a cd cache, and the slow and archaic optical drive must be randomly accessed. its a recipe for slow, youre better off with a slax live cd. to run ubuntu you have to actually do an install. i have installed ubuntu to laptops that couldn't boot into live cd mode. the link i posted showed ubuntu booting on an 8 bit mcu emulating an arm processor, very slow, but it booted. :D
-
Low end machines from 90's and early 2000's having 256 or 512 mb of ram? That was back when memory was pretty expensive. It was a while before memory at least fell to one dollar per megabyte, and even that was expensive. On my first computer i built, it only had 64mb of ram. Unreal tournament required a minimum of 32mb. Fs1 could be played in software mode on a pentium 120 with 32mb ram. Game requirements back then we're pretty modest in terms of required memory. It did blow my mind a little bit to see that my dad's 1995 packard bell pentium 120 and 32mb of ram could play fs1 in software mode.
Basically in the late 90's and early new millenium, you were sitting pretty comfy with 128mb since that was a lot of memory then.
-
you know what i may not have the time right. in 2002 i was building machines which typically had 256 megs ram. at the time most of my computers ran 512 megs, but these were lower end rigs, for buisness and educational use. i rembember back then putting 2gb into a server and thinking how would anyone ever use that much ram, and now here i am with 4x that much, and wondering about the same. late 90s, like the machine i bought around the time fs2 came out, started with 128 megs which i upped to 256. so maybe late 90s doesnt apply but definately early 00s. even if i had a late 90s computer, i wouldn't throw it away (though id probibly break it down for parts).
-
It kind of does seem like we're at a point right now where you can afford to throw gobs of RAM in just for the hell of it, regardless of how much memory anything you're running would actually make use of. Is there really any application under the sun that would push 8 GB's worth to the limit?
-
It kind of does seem like we're at a point right now where you can afford to throw gobs of RAM in just for the hell of it, regardless of how much memory anything you're running would actually make use of. Is there really any application under the sun that would push 8 GB's worth to the limit?
Firefox? :D
-
Touche. :lol:
-
frankly im rather annoyed at avgs frequent "omg firefox is using 300mb wtf?" messages. i mean use the ****ing ram. thats what its there for.
-
It kind of does seem like we're at a point right now where you can afford to throw gobs of RAM in just for the hell of it, regardless of how much memory anything you're running would actually make use of. Is there really any application under the sun that would push 8 GB's worth to the limit?
Anything that renders
Java
Ramdisks (this one kills it off really quick)
VMs
A single linux VM in a ramdisk
-
Interesting opinions. I especially like the fact that Linux can run on just about any hardware (Damn Small Linux is incredibly useful for this purpose), so with that said, do you guys typically keep LiveCDs around for troubleshooting purposes like I do? It's saved my ass a few times when I needed to make a few emergency backups before doing a complete HDD wipe.
And it's interesting that you guys mention Ubuntu. I used Ubuntu back in 2008-2009, back when I had an interest in small-systems programming (since Linux seemed more convenient for that at the time) and it was rather good, especially in the 8.04/8.10 days. Now it seems to have gone to **** and become horribly bloated. Mint appears to be based on Ubuntu, but they have cut out the crap that makes Ubuntu 11... well, Ubuntu. No Unity, no cloud bull****, nothing of the sort--just easy package installation and high rate of hardware compatibility.
That said, Nuke, do you think Linux Mint 11 would run on that horrifically slow processor that you mentioned earlier?
Java
This, right here, always pisses me off; especially when it's out of context. I'm not going to derail my own thread, but ****ing hell, this is a pet peeve of mine. I've been coding in Java for eight years now and I have never had any application I code take up as much memory as people claim it seems to do. Minecraft nonwithstanding (from what I understand, it uses anywhere between 0.5 to 1 GB at a time), it's not that bad.
-
Java
This, right here, always pisses me off; especially when it's out of context. I'm not going to derail my own thread, but ****ing hell, this is a pet peeve of mine. I've been coding in Java for eight years now and I have never had any application I code take up as much memory as people claim it seems to do. Minecraft nonwithstanding (from what I understand, it uses anywhere between 0.5 to 1 GB at a time), it's not that bad.
It wouldnt be so bad if it didnt try to preallocate everything. Minecraft ACTUALLY uses only 100-400mb at a time, but java takes out a much larger chunk anyway.
(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6276/11846774.png)
And it stays this way. If MC is using ~250, java has 600. If MC is using 400, java is at the full 1gb. It's constantly about 2.5x what the game is using.
Even if it is meant to be this way, that is one hell of a good argument for saying java is a memory hog. "Maxing 8gb" might be exaggerating it, but my computer has been known to "idle" (the state I leave it alone at, all background programs I want running) at 5.5gb, so if I only had 8gb instead of 16, it wouldn't take a whole lot for java to push it over the edge.
-
Interesting opinions. I especially like the fact that Linux can run on just about any hardware (Damn Small Linux is incredibly useful for this purpose), so with that said, do you guys typically keep LiveCDs around for troubleshooting purposes like I do? It's saved my ass a few times when I needed to make a few emergency backups before doing a complete HDD wipe.
And it's interesting that you guys mention Ubuntu. I used Ubuntu back in 2008-2009, back when I had an interest in small-systems programming (since Linux seemed more convenient for that at the time) and it was rather good, especially in the 8.04/8.10 days. Now it seems to have gone to **** and become horribly bloated. Mint appears to be based on Ubuntu, but they have cut out the crap that makes Ubuntu 11... well, Ubuntu. No Unity, no cloud bull****, nothing of the sort--just easy package installation and high rate of hardware compatibility.
That said, Nuke, do you think Linux Mint 11 would run on that horrifically slow processor that you mentioned earlier?
it would probibly run better. but on the other hand i very much doubt its booting more than the bare minimum, also you note that its running in a terminal, since the machine has no display hardware what so ever. actually the chip they are using is probibly one of the bast atmegas out there. for an 8-bit microcontroller it has some beef. 16k sram, 128k flash (aka program memory, its a harvard architecture meaning seprate program and data memories), and can run at 20 mhz. it even has some ram and flash expansion (operated in software btw). problem is when you emulate a 32 bit processor with an 8 bit processor, things get slow. its like trying to emulate a pc on a super nintendo. its not something that you normally do. its just a clever way to pimp the fact that linux can run on anything.
btw i cant say that ive ever tried mint. its been a couple years since i fooled around with linux. when i did it was ubuntu (and varients), fedora, i use a slax live cd for troubleshooting, i may have tried debian. but it seems i have a surplus of machines that need operating systems, and so its long overdo to give the os another chance. unfortunately i have a shortage of monitors, input devices, and space.
Java
This, right here, always pisses me off; especially when it's out of context. I'm not going to derail my own thread, but ****ing hell, this is a pet peeve of mine. I've been coding in Java for eight years now and I have never had any application I code take up as much memory as people claim it seems to do. Minecraft nonwithstanding (from what I understand, it uses anywhere between 0.5 to 1 GB at a time), it's not that bad.
i would argue that the performance hit from the virtual machine has little to do with the performance hit of a java application. of course maybe i dont understand how the vm works. does it allocate a vm for each application, or is it one vm for everything? i would also argue that in addition to the program you also would need to run libraries and so fourth. i really have nothing against applications that use ram as needed. in fact i have a bigger problem when applications dont use ram and instead use hard drive resources, when there is plenty of additional ram in the system. the exception of course is when the os hogs all the ram and leaves none for applications, and ends up wasting a lot of time paging out to the swapfile to free up memory.
-
does it allocate a vm for each application, or is it one vm for everything?
2 instances of minecraft = 2 instances of java, each with their own ram limit in task manager. So I'm going to say one for each.
-
IMHO, Linux distros tailored for slow systems tend to suck for home users. I strongly recommend using mainstream, full-blown desktop distros, since I'm under the impression distros such as Damn Small Linux give a bad first impression of Linux to many people.
it's not that bad.
Yes it is.
Don't take me wrong though, I love Java.
-
im kind of the opinion that an os should only contain bare essentials for configuring and running the system, and allow the user to select their own applications as needed. windows especially (though im sure the same applies to linux as well) is just loaded with software that i just dont use. software that id rather not have wasting space on my system. i kinda frown on any software suite that comes with an operating system, and i kinda wish operating system developers would keep em separate.
-
If I got a new desktop computer now (and I'd probably build it myself) I'd be very tempted to use a Linux OS, since there are only a few programs I'd want to use that require Windows and I could always use a virtual machine or WINE for that (at the moment I could get free copies of Windows from MSDNAA). In fact I tried having a dual-boot on my current desktop though I couldn't get it (I tried a few variants of Ubuntu) to use my USB wireless adapter properly, and I haven't got around to getting rid of it. I use Linux Mint on my netbook most of the time now as it runs faster than 7 Starter.
I wouldn't mind having a go at putting some form of Linux on my older (from 2003) desktop if I could get a cheap monitor for it.
-
Hmm, there is supposed to be a wrapper you can use so that Windows drivers will work with Linux, it's called NDIS wrapper, I believe.
-
NDISwrapper, IIRC, is meant for wireless adapters only, and in all honesty I've never had it work. However, that was mostly with Broadcom wireless cards, which seems to be on of the worst when it comes to linux compatibility.
-
i got it to work once, but i had to reboot the whole machine every time it disconnected from the router. and it did that frequently. its harder to use a usb wifi dongle though, because linux does things with usb that interfere with it. instead get an add in wifi card with good linux drivers, it will work better.
-
It kind of does seem like we're at a point right now where you can afford to throw gobs of RAM in just for the hell of it, regardless of how much memory anything you're running would actually make use of. Is there really any application under the sun that would push 8 GB's worth to the limit?
Chrome.
-
IE?
-
Board game engines.
-
its harder to use a usb wifi dongle though, because linux does things with usb that interfere with it. instead get an add in wifi card with good linux drivers, it will work better.
I've had reasonable luck with OpenSUSE and my usb wifi dongle; hardest part was realizing that the OS just wasn't starting the network manager, not that it didn't have the right drivers. Too scared to try it on any other distros though, definitely wouldn't want to deal with it during a Gentoo installation.
Personally I'm of the opinion that for power/normal computer users linux systems are great if you've got plenty of free time or you know exactly what you'll get out of using it. Even once you've gotten everything set up the way you want it, I find there are usually more gotchas that'll harass you much more often than in windows. None are really computer breakers, but they'll take a little time to look up and fix. I started off with Arch on a spare computer second semester senior year of high school and it wound up doing nothing but sitting next to my windows computer running irssi all the time. The following summer I installed Debian on my primary desktop and IMHO it was a great move. Familiarity with linux systems definitely payed off at uni both for classes and work. I currently dual boot with windows 7 for games and media usage. Even my netbook dual boots, but that's just because I need software for lab work that only runs reliably in windows and I have Debian because it's nice to have an OS that my hardware meets the minimum requirements.
But if you're a casual user (ie all you do is surf the web, word processing, etc) Linux could be good. If you can get someone to set it up properly for you, 90% of the time you won't really be able to grasp the differences from windows/OSX. I've found the single worst thing about linux for this purpose is how Open/Libre office handle conversions from MS Office power point presentations; it's always just really damn garbled. There are probably other issues, but they aren't big enough for me to have noticed yet.
-
Gentoo isn't as complicated as people think. What it is, is probably the most heavily documented distro, so most problems you might have can be solved by looking at the documentation.
-
Yep. Unfortunately during the school year reading linux distro documentation isn't very high on my list of things I'd like to spend my free time doing, and depending on what assignments/projects are currently open spending a weekend trying to get my computer working can potentially be very hazardous to my sleep schedule.
-
^
|
|
This.
-
yes but how boring is the documentation? i find most linux man pages completely unreadable because they drone on endlessly and after 3 hours of reading your still not sure what youre supposed to do. i read the entire dos manual when i was 13 and it was a better read than anything i saw in a linux man page.
-
Yes. Precisely. Linux man page authors need to learn how to KISS, summarize, and provide examples of usage that actually illustrate clearly how the basic command normally would be used.. and then confine the Encyclopedia Britannica of what other awesome things a command can do to after the important stuff, such as the simple summary.
-
Here are some examples.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/list.xml?desc=1
-
So, if I want to enable NTFS write access in my Gentoo install... where to?
-
http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/NTFS-3G
-
Hmph. It took me days of searching (in my spare time) to find that for Ubuntu ... 7 I think it was. Back when I first was playing around with Linux. Very frustrating. And even then, I didn't end up doing it cause back then it wasn't as reliable and I didn't want to toast my Windows install.
-
So, if I want to enable NTFS write access in my Gentoo install... where to?
Most problems of this sort can actually be solved by just searching for a keyword in the repo; searching for "ntfs" here (http://gentoo-portage.com/AdvSearch) or even through emerge should bring you to ntfs-3g. But for the record, back in the days of Ubuntu 7 NTFS-3G was pretty new so I'd bet it was a headache no matter where you were coming from.
But all in all I agree with you Nuke and jr2, the problem with most major linux distributions (and packages) isn't lack of documentation.
-
I also have a few versions of linux that I keep on USB sticks, SD cards, and microSD cards, for when I need to jack a public computer for a little while. They're good enough to get MC working if the hardware is willing, which is good enough for me.
Can you point me in the direction to set this up? I want to do this as well.
Thanks!
-
I also have a few versions of linux that I keep on USB sticks, SD cards, and microSD cards, for when I need to jack a public computer for a little while. They're good enough to get MC working if the hardware is willing, which is good enough for me.
Can you point me in the direction to set this up? I want to do this as well.
Thanks!
-Plug in USB stick
-Boot from LiveDisk
-Install to USB stick
-Boot from USB stick
All done.
Unlike Windows, Linux has no problems treating USB sticks and SD cards as harddrives.