Which Linux?

[Removed #5]

Realizing that I'm potentially opening up a can of worms here - everyone has their own viewpoint on which is best.

Who here is using a variety of Linux and which do you think is best and why?

As I said in the Windows 8 thread, I can't see me moving to Win 8 - and as Linux improves I see more and more capability there - especially for those of us who are not interested in delving into the heart of an OS.

So - which and why, folks??

Just to comment, I've "played" with Linux for quite a while, just not as comfortable there as I have been with Windows.

For me PCLinuxOS has been an good introduction to current Linux's but for some reason it just doesn't feel complete.

Dropping the current version of OpenSuse onto my other box now ... let's see how much it has developed since I last looked at it.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Al Jones

[BlueWolf]

It really depends on what you want. If you want to install it and immediately have it up and running without too much effort I would recommend most of Ubuntu's variations.

- Kubuntu has KDE, worked out of the box for me even on the slowest computers and is very eye-candy focussed in an actual function and fun way. It's much better than I expected and is now my main setup.

- You have Lubuntu which has LXDE. Imo basically very straight to the point without too much bells and extra stuff. I've used it for quite some time on my laptop with pleasure.

- Linux Mint which comes in different variations. First one is uses the new MATE desktop. Too many people liked Gnome 2 and didn't want to switch to either Gnome 3 or Unity, so they forked Gnome 2, enhanced it and called it MATE

- Linux Mint Cinnamon which uses the Cinnamon desktop. No real experience with this but according to my friends Cinnamon is really good.

For both Linux Mint flavours there are again two variations. One is based of Ubuntu and the other is based on Debian Testing and is basically a rolling release, meaning you will always have the latest version of all your programs.

There is also of course Arch if you're really feeling brave and want to built up your own system from scratch. It'll take some time, but it's worth it. There's a lot of documentation available and when you're done you've learned an incredible amount of new things about your computer and Linux in general.

There is of course much more, but the above are the ones I have (or at least some) experience with. There are of course sites like http://distrowatch.com/ that lets you list all distributions based on popularity. It would be a good place to start looking for alternatives.

ETA: I realised you might not be familiar with all the names like rolling releases. If there's something unclear for you, just ask and I'll explain it for you

[Removed #5]

I'll try hard to not consider your last line to be condescending << chuckling >> PCLinusOS is a rolling release and the way they're delivering updates to Windows - again - it may as well be one.

I can't say I actively dislike Ubuntu, but it's been so hot for so long and for some reason it's adherents are almost religiously zealous that I've stayed away from it. I hate the attitude of "If you're so dumb that you don't realize it's the greatest thing since sliced bread ... well, then you deserve whatever you get!"

Thanks for your comments, I watch Distrowatch but it seems as if every TD&H have their own branch out ...

[BlueWolf]

I agree with Ubuntu (and Unity) having gone downhill lately. It used to be for powerusers like us but now they've mostly focussed on new users coming from Windows. Unity, in my opinion, is awful. It runs crap even on my slowest computer and don't even think of using it with two screens. Kubuntu is basically just KDE with the stability of Ubuntu. I don't think Canonical is actually actively working on it and instead it's mostly community supported, which means suggestions people like actually have a chance of getting into it.

You don't HAVE to to use Kubuntu for KDE. You can also get KDE on, for example, Debian but you will have to spend some time installing and configuring it all where as in Kubuntu it works directly from the livecd. You can just try it. I believe Marc installed it the same day I suggested it to him

Actually, I just read up on PCLinuxOS (last time I heard of it was nearly 6 years ago and the only thing I remember is that they wanted it to look like Windows as much as possible) and it appears they're using KDE as well?

[Removed #5]

I've been following PCLinux for quite a while and I agree, their original intent was to make it something so "Windows like" that the "average" user could load and run it without having to be a techy. When they first started, most of the other dists still required that you be willing to chase down RPM's for the common things they didn't feel were needed. I think most of the dists have gone the same way now that they did, an installable "live cd", simple install and a common repository somewhere with a 'slew' of applications.

I'm somewhat in the middle of the road, I like to write code, I don't like to have to finagle my operating system (too much); I need a decent compiler, I just don't want to have to write it!

I said I was loading Suse on my other machine and functionally I can't see a lot of differences from KUbuntu or PcLinux - 'course I *am* looking at a KDE front end. A few name differences here and there but effectively same-old-same-old KDE.

Oh, yeah, PCLinux has several front ends, KDE, of course, GNOME, XFCE and three or four more just to keep all the bases covered - all things for everyone!?!

Edited November 24, 2012 by Al Jones

[Marc]

Im currently playing between kubuntu and ubuntu trying to make my mind up which I prefer. I actually like parts of unity and other parts I dont, however that is the beauty of linux, you can mix and match.

Biggest issue you are going to have with moving over to linux is that you use visual studio. You will not get that to work no matter what you use, its just too complex to be patched to work in a linux environment. Its not build for linux and you can tell.

[Removed #5]

<< snipped >>

Biggest issue you are going to have with moving over to linux is that you use visual studio. You will not get that to work no matter what you use, its just too complex to be patched to work in a linux environment. Its not build for linux and you can tell.

But I'm not married to it, FreeBasic and Gambas both exist over on Linux (( and yes, I'm now a BASIC programmer - it's gotten better and I'm not inclined to go too far into the OOPs world. )) It wouldn't take me too long to get back into straight C again either. APL, my first language, FORTRAN, COBOL and RPG are so far out of it that they're beyond the realm - except for some very specific applications.

I've found a couple of decent IDE's both on Windows and Linux that are quite workable. Some of what I've done / am doing would port over easily; some wouldn't be worth the effort.

[BlueWolf]

Aah, Gambas! That's what I used too when I switched to Linux and all I knew was Visual Basic, lol. It's actually quite good. It's not quite the same, but when you're used to Basic, Gambas is easy to learn. The only reason I stopped using it was after I learned Python which works across all major platforms.

[Marc]

But I'm not married to it, FreeBasic and Gambas both exist over on Linux (( and yes, I'm now a BASIC programmer - it's gotten better and I'm not inclined to go too far into the OOPs world. )) It wouldn't take me too long to get back into straight C again either. APL, my first language, FORTRAN, COBOL and RPG are so far out of it that they're beyond the realm - except for some very specific applications.

I've found a couple of decent IDE's both on Windows and Linux that are quite workable. Some of what I've done / am doing would port over easily; some wouldn't be worth the effort.

There is the interactivity with the windows file system for your open source projects you would want to have something to work with. Personally I have a dual boot setup specifically for that reason. If you have enough memory on your PC for using a virtual box then thats also an option.

[Removed #5]

There is the interactivity with the windows file system for your open source projects you would want to have something to work with. Personally I have a dual boot setup specifically for that reason. If you have enough memory on your PC for using a virtual box then thats also an option.

I'm sorry, but for some reason that first sentence make zilch sense to me ...

and I do have a VM with PCLinuxOS (Mandriva fork), OpenSuSE, Mageia (another Mandriva fork) and a crapped Win8 (won't install - that's okay!)

It's obvious, to me, that I'm not going to Win8, for several reasons that system leaves me cold!; which leaves me the choice of staying with 7, which seems to be a decent, stable os, or finally going over to Linux. (( I also have my old laptop, and my (late) girlfriends system here, both of which have XP on them ))

My single attempt at dual booting Win7 left me with a working Linux and nothing in grub to get to 7, as far as I could see the Linux partition didn't even realize there was a Windows partition on the disk! ... and looking around the web, I was disgusted to realize I didn't know what they were talking about to enable it (( well, at least I'll admit it when I'm completely lost! )) it also left me several hours to get Windows back to where I could use it.

[Dunc]

[BlueWolf]

[...]

My single attempt at dual booting Win7 left me with a working Linux and nothing in grub to get to 7, as far as I could see the Linux partition didn't even realize there was a Windows partition on the disk! ... and looking around the web, I was disgusted to realize I didn't know what they were talking about to enable it (( well, at least I'll admit it when I'm completely lost! )) it also left me several hours to get Windows back to where I could use it.

That's odd. I have Windows 7 (on a triple boot) as well and grub has detected it without problems. It's usually windows (when you install Linux first and then Windows) that refuses to acknowledge the presence of a Linux boot.

It's not actually that hard to manually put it on the list though.

[Removed #5]

That's odd. I have Windows 7 (on a triple boot) as well and grub has detected it without problems. It's usually windows (when you install Linux first and then Windows) that refuses to acknowledge the presence of a Linux boot.

It's not actually that hard to manually put it on the list though.

That's what I thought too but since so much of my life is on that one box, having the install crap all over me was not what I wanted. I've dual booted several os's and not had any problems - but those were all with XP. That's when I decided that playing around in VM's was a whole lot safer - even if it is slower (though not so bad as it was). What really had me going was that neither I nor the Linux (I *think* it was probably PCLinuxOS) could locate the windows partition after I installed it. If I'm remembering this right, I was able to use the BIOS boot feature to get to it (either os) but couldn't alter the grub from within Windows and, as I said, Linux couldn't see the NTFS partition ... oh well, that's past history. If / when I finally make up my mind on which to go with, I'll probably do it on my GF's older machine and take it from there.

I was really curious as to what versions anyone was using ...

[BlueWolf]

Oh, you mean these where issues from some time ago? Linux is able to read and write ntfs for a very long time now. Windows, however, still only understands its own filesystem and nothing more than that. But according to my friends it's possible to get to the Linux partitions on Windows using separate programs.

If you want Linux and Windows working next to each other it's usually advised to have a third (ntfs or fat32) partition both Windows and Linux can access.

[Marc]

Ensure you install windows before you install linux. I did the other way around and while you can do it, its a pain in the backside