Linux

[Icarus1]

I'm in the process of upgrading the hard drive on one of my dad's old computers, but of course, we don't have any Windows Live discs and I'm not shelling out money for what they're selling NOW.

I'm considering running Linux Mint, which is a very simple, user friendly distribution. I'd also like to run Arch eventually so I can build my own features and such.

Any Linux users in the house? What's your favorite distro? Non-Linux users: What OS are you running and why?

[rsp1202]

I've been running Linux Mint 13 Maya for some time. Couldn't be simpler or more stable. I think the L-community has promised continuing support for this version for the next five (now four?) years, so that was a big factor in switching from Ubuntu. That and cost has pretty much quelled any desire to go back to Mac. I also have Windows 7 partitioned off on my HD just in case but have never found the need or want to use it, so will probably remove it to free up more disc space. Mint is cool.

[cjc15153]

I've been using Linux for 10 years now. Right now I run OpenSuse and KDE. It is very customizable, which us great for me, but bad for elderly parents and those who provide them tech support. I think there is a kiosk mode that would lock down pretty well, but Gnome is fairly kiosky already IMHO.

[giammi]

I am running Debian on all my computers and server at work. I chose Debian because it is very stable. The only downside is that some applications do not have the newest features.

I always install Linux Mint for people who would like to try GNU/Linux for the first time.

I tried OpenSuse and Mageia last week and liked them so far. Both run the KDE Desktop and are quite polished. Depending on older hardware Crunchbang might also be a option.

On http://www.distrowatch.com you can see more linux distributions.

[Icarus1]

I've been using Linux for 10 years now. Right now I run OpenSuse and KDE. It is very customizable, which us great for me, but bad for elderly parents and those who provide them tech support. I think there is a kiosk mode that would lock down pretty well, but Gnome is fairly kiosky already IMHO.

I should clarify; I'd be using the computer. I'm just using one of my dad's old towers. And anyway, he's very computer savvy (and only 46). I like customizable -- is it a rolling release?

[merkri]

This is a bit late because I've been traveling and such.

I usually run Kubuntu. I like KDE+debian package management. There's probably something else I could use to do this, but they usually do a good job.

[Icarus1]

This is a bit late because I've been traveling and such.

I usually run Kubuntu. I like KDE+debian package management. There's probably something else I could use to do this, but they usually do a good job.

I've gotten all of my new hardware together, upgraded the tower, and installed Arch, which uses Pacman. Pacman is nice because all you need to do to install a program, as long as it is within the official Arch repository, is run:

sudo pacman -S [package]

I've also installed KDE, which is by far the most usable desktop environment I have encountered so far, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to change the wallpaper... Not strictly necessary to performance, but it's an aesthetic touch that I'd like to be able to customize...

[drmoss_ca]

Back in the days when I had a Mac PowerBook 2400c I installed what I think was then called LinuxPPC just for fun (I think I made a couple of newsgroup posts and sent a couple of e-mails with the command line tools and then gave up). Later I used a couple of versions of Yellow Dog Linux and the beta of BeOS (still have the T-shirts that went with those last two) most recently ran Ubuntu in a Parallels VM on my MacBook Pro. Even now, I keep VMs of Windows XP, MacOS10.6.8 (for Rosetta apps) and Sheepshaver which runs OS9 as a VM on a modern mac. Nothing like firing up OS9 and working through Pathways Into Darkness!

Chris

[merkri]

I've gotten all of my new hardware together, upgraded the tower, and installed Arch, which uses Pacman. Pacman is nice because all you need to do to install a program, as long as it is within the official Arch repository, is run:

sudo pacman -S [package]

I've heard good things about Arch--I'm curious about it.

I've also installed KDE, which is by far the most usable desktop environment I have encountered so far, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to change the wallpaper... Not strictly necessary to performance, but it's an aesthetic touch that I'd like to be able to customize...

Not sure if you figured this out but...

It's under Default Desktop Settings if you right click on the background ... make sure widgets are unlocked and switch Wallpaper from "color" to "image" and I think you can select a different image. I'm not sure where they get saved ... you can copy them into the global directory in /usr/share/wallpapers/ but not sure where the local directory equivalent would be.

[notthesharpest]

I've heard good things about Arch--I'm curious about it.

If you're a somewhat-experienced Linux user, it's very nice, easy to manage day to day, and its packages are kept up to date extremely well. Pacman (Arch's package manager) handles dependencies better than most, and updates are generally very smooth. The people who run the distribution are against patching what comes from "upstream" except in pretty dire circumstances; I like this because things generally work as their respective developers intended them to, not modified to run on any particular system (as happens with Debian and its descendants, for example). Of course that minimal-patches policy allows things to "break" now and then, but in practice that has turned out to be rare. I wouldn't necessarily install it for a server that has to stay up for the next seventeen years without any changes (that's what Debian is for, right?), but I would certainly recommend it for ordinary use.

The community bulletin boards and wiki are a great source of help and information, and people using other distributions often happen to find the answers to their problems there as well.

The main problems with Arch: Great patience and considerable time may be required when you're installing it for the first time. Installation is conceptually simple but there is no graphical installer and you have to read and understand a lot of instructions. (Those instructions are quite well written and kept up to date on the Arch website, but you'll need every word. Your second try will be a lot easier. ) Arch Linux's default installation actually gives you nothing more than a fully-functioning command line - desktop software is optional - even having graphics is optional! But once the main system is running, those things are generally not much of a problem to install, and all of the major desktops have convenient install packages - you're not stuck building X from source as you might have been some time ago on Gentoo.

Related to this, you'd need to update your system regularly, and keep up with the latest news, kept on the front page of their website, in case manual intervention is needed to make some particular update work. That perhaps sounds bad but it isn't; just glance at the website before you start your updates. Only in tricky situations is there anything to manage by hand... the majority of the time no intervention is required. And on Arch, a full system upgrade goes like this: read the news just in case -> open a terminal -> type "sudo pacman -Syu" -> press enter a couple of times -> smile and go back to whatever you were doing.

Arch is a "rolling release" - which in general just means "There's never a new version, you don't ever need a new installer CD, just keep it updated with the package manager and you're done".

From some people's point of view at least, there can be a snobby unfriendly RTFM kind of attitude from some of the Arch people. There's also the fact that if you're not comfortable managing your system with shell commands instead of graphical tools you soon will be.

To sum up:
1. Arch can be tricky to get installed and running the way you want it, but once you do, I think it's actually easier than most others to keep using. Especially the fact that upstream packages are left as-is except in an emergency, means there are fewer and simpler problems of "package X" not working. Arch's package-management software is excellent, and software conflicts and problems are fixed promptly.

2. Because of the occasional "breaking update", you probably don't want Arch running on a public-facing server where changelessness and predictability are paramount. For general use, it's great.

3. Not recommended for a "newbie", mainly because of first-time installation. If you are a patient newbie who is willing to read the instructions and learn, there's nothing wrong with that, but... well, I guess we'll see you in a week.

[Icarus1]

...there can be a snobby unfriendly RTFM kind of attitude from some of the Arch people.

I can vouch for this...