need distro for newbie
in [General Linux]
|
From: General Schvantzkoph on 31 May 2010 20:03 On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:36:30 -0700, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 05/31/2010 04:17 PM, General Schvantzkoph wrote: > > >> There are two GUIs for yum, the Add/Remove Software tool on the System/ >> Administration menu and yumex. Add/Remove Software is their by default, >> yumex has to be installed, do it with >> >> yum -y install yumex >> >> I like yumex a lot better than the default software installer. >> >> > Ok, will try yumex, thanks for the pointer. > >> You will want to set up both the Free and Non-Free fusion repos if you >> haven't done it already. The Non-Free repo is where the Nvidia binary >> drivers are and the media codecs. You will want to install the >> gstreamer- plugins-ugly package, that's the one that has all of the >> non-free codecs. >> >> If you want to use Google Chrome and Picassa you will want to set up >> the Google repositories also. >> >> http://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/yum.html >> >> > Tried chrome under debian. Never liked chrome. I like firefox more. > > >> 64 bit FLASH isn't in an RPM, you should just download it from Adobe >> and put it into your .mozilla/plugins directory, >> >> http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10_64bit.html >> >> > I did not do the above, I followed instructions on 64 bit flash on > fedora web site here: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flash > > > >> One more thing. I'm using Thunderbird for my e-mail, Evolution is a >> horrible mess and has been for a couple of years now. Don't try to >> remove Evolution, > > I do not! I also use thunderbird also. I imported all my livemail > messages to thunderbird ok. > > Had no problems with monitor drivers with fedora 13, all up just fine. > Display looks good, fonts look good. > > Next project for me to install Vbox on fedora, and windows7 64 bit in > it, so I can use couple of windows applications which do not exist on > linux, and I'll be set. Don't use Virtual Box use KVM, just install virtualization and you'll get KVM. Redhat owns KVM so it's really well integrated into Fedora and RHEL. KVM is the fastest virtualizer (I've benchmarked KVM, VMware Server and VBox) however it does have a couple of easily rectified limitations. KVM lacks virtual folders and the performance of it's console isn't great. To get around these you just have to export the directories you want to share with SAMBA and mount them in the Windows VM as network mounts. Also instead of using the console to access the Windows VM use rdesktop (install it with yumex or yum -y install rdesktop). The performance of rdesktop is great, also you can configure it to any geometry you want. This also means that your VM can live on any machine in your network assuming that you have multiple machines. One more thing, I really love webmin for handling admin tasks, http://www.webmin.com/ Webmin works with all major distros so you can use it as a common admin tool in a mixed distro env. I find it particularly convenient for managing SAMBA, NFS, cvs, ssh, enabling services on boot up, and setting the time.
From: bosco on 31 May 2010 22:42 I would go with PCLinuxOS. Works fine lasts a long time. I am always puzzled about a beginners Linux. It is all in the kernal, the rest is wondow dressing. Even Debian Linux shares the same basic kernal and a quick search for codecs for multimedia. There aren't that many difficult to use Distro's out there unless one chooses to make it so. Ubuntu started out good and thought Debian wsa being old fashioned by releasing so slowly. Now under pressure for six month releases they are seeing what takes Debain so long... imo at least.
From: Michael Black on 1 Jun 2010 00:36 On Mon, 31 May 2010, J G Miller wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:59:06 +0000, Dan C wrote: > >> Slackware. > > Perhaps Frugalware would be a little easier for > a neophyte? > > <http://frugalware.ORG/> > First, if a distribution has never been heard of before, chances are good it's the worst possible distribution. Because one that isn't used doesn't have the books or websites or users to help the newcomer. A distribution intended for the newcomer still doesn't work unless it's actually been out and proved useful to the newcomer, but even then, a popular distribution is likely ahead, since lots of people can help due to being familiar with the distribution. About 10 years ago, I finally got around to Linux, trying Debian in the summer of 2000, and finding problems (missing Pine, that I really wanted but wasn't prepared to install independently at that stage, and all that fuss over dependencies). A few months later, I found a beat up copy of "Slackware Linux for Dummies" at the bookstore, complete with the CDs but a torn cover to lower the price to about 12.00. I grabbed it. The fact that there was such a book at one time is an indicator that Slackware isn't the burden some want to think it is. I did the install, had no problems (no fuss over dependencies there), and realized the computer I had for the purpose was way too limited. When I got a 200MHz Pentium some months later, I just popped the CD in the drive, and there went the install. Yes I had to configure, but I had no real problems. Of course, while I was new to Linux and new to Unix, I'd had a computer for 22 years at that point. But I suspect someone who's actually used a computer for a while can handle Slackware. Michael
From: J G Miller on 1 Jun 2010 11:05 On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:36:03 -0400, Michael Black wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2010, J G Miller wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:59:06 +0000, Dan C wrote: >> >>> Slackware. >> >> Perhaps Frugalware would be a little easier for a neophyte? >> >> <http://frugalware.ORG/> >> > First, if a distribution has never been heard of before, chances are > good it's the worst possible distribution. Because one that isn't used > doesn't have the books or websites or users to help the newcomer. Does not have website? Was that not a link I posted to a website? And if you bother to check Linux Distrowatch you will see that the distribution is not as unknown as your ignorance leads you to believe, and the reviews there demonstrate that it most certainly a good and worthwhile distribution to consider. Your argument is what is known as a "straw man" argument. > The fact that there was such a book at one time is an indicator that > Slackware isn't the burden some want to think it is. The first Linux distribution which I installed was a Slackware distribution, and no book was available at the time, so I do not consider that Slackware is a burden, so please do not try to imply that I was saying that it was by your insinuations.
From: notbob on 1 Jun 2010 11:56
On 2010-06-01, Michael Black <et472(a)ncf.ca> wrote: > Of course, while I was new to Linux and new to Unix, I'd had a computer > for 22 years at that point. But I suspect someone who's actually used > a computer for a while can handle Slackware. As another longtime Slack convert, I too am amazed Slackware continues to suffer from old outdated myths that apparently still puts new users off. It's almost laughable. Facts: Slackware is easy to configure. If you can read and comprehend these newsgroups and use a text editor, you can easily configure a simple Slackware configuration script. Often the configuration text files are simpler and easier to understand and use than so-called GUI interfaces. Slackware is current. I once compared a new release of Slack against a new release of Ubuntu. Several programs and applications were newer in the Slackware release. Slackware is not hard to install. It gives simple easy to understand step-by-step instructions, most being simple prompt and response. Slackware has a graphic desktop. In fact it has 6 of them! You get to choose the one you want, from the most comprehensive KDE to the brutally spartan twm. I use KDE and Fluxbox, as needed, interchangeably. Slackware seems difficult to many folks for one simple reason. It gives you choices. Windows doesn't give you choices. Apple doesn't. Even Ubuntu gives you few choices. But, with choice comes responsibility. IOW, you have to know what's what if you want to choose. Also, Slackware doesn't assume you're dumb. It doesn't rework applications and programs to dumb down or suit the distro originator's view of how a linux distro should work. Slackware is very "vanilla", the added packages and programs being left in the original developers configuration and not tweaked to Slack's desires. I could go on forever, but won't. I found Slackware after fighting Red Hat for 2 yrs. What a freakin' relief! Compared to RH, Debian, Caldera, and a couple others, Slackware was brain-dead simple! BTW, Slackware has a HUGE support community. It's the oldest surviving linux, one of the most stable and secure, and is second only to Debian as the basis for many other spin-off Linux distros. Obviously, Slackware must be doing something right. I hope you give it a look. ;) nb |