Stop Microsoft

Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: lazygamer on 15 August 2002, 13:54

Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: lazygamer on 15 August 2002, 13:54: Suppose I wanted to try another Linux instead, like maybe I thought Mandrake was too in-efficient resource and power wise(even if it is stable and easy to install). What would be the best distros that give plenty of power, but don't really splurge on the geek factor? Most Mandrake "user friendlyness" would come from the KDE and GNOME GUI's, and aren't those included with most Linuxes? Unless Mandrake has a bunch of other things that most Linuxes don't have.

Surely if I took the time to study the manual and practice everything I read, that I would be fine with a more advanced Linux?(As long as it wasn't too geeky)
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: Ice-9 on 15 August 2002, 14:27: Give SuSE a try.
I installed that first, then I tried Mandrake and I wnet back really fast to SuSE.
It's user-friendly and installs without a glitch in like 20 minutes, well I had a few problems with it but they were entirely my fault.
Plus it's an ftp install, this means that you always get the latest versions available for all of the software that's included.
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: eradicator on 15 August 2002, 19:05: try libranet. it's based on debian and very easy to use.

http://www.libranet.com/ (http://www.libranet.com/)
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: Bazoukas on 15 August 2002, 19:30: quote:
Originally posted by lazygamer:
Suppose I wanted to try another Linux instead, like maybe I thought Mandrake was too in-efficient resource and power wise(even if it is stable and easy to install). What would be the best distros that give plenty of power, but don't really splurge on the geek factor? Most Mandrake "user friendlyness" would come from the KDE and GNOME GUI's, and aren't those included with most Linuxes? Unless Mandrake has a bunch of other things that most Linuxes don't have.

Surely if I took the time to study the manual and practice everything I read, that I would be fine with a more advanced Linux?(As long as it wasn't too geeky)

i am talking from my experience using mandrake and Redhat.

gnome,Kde and some other applications are the same. There is no major difference between serious applications.
Whats different though is tweaking your system.

Example: You using RH7.3 and you have a secondary Hard drive in your PC. You cant go via Quick browse and access the HD with out mounting it. And this is done for security reasons.

In Mandrake you can by default.
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: creedon on 15 August 2002, 19:54: If you feel like a challenge, give Linux From Scratch a try. You actually build a Linux install from scratch, specific to your particular machine. It involves the use of an existing Linux OS to construct a bootable kernel on another formatted partition, then booting into that partition, and configuring the rest of the install. I've talked to a number of people who've done it; they all say it's a shithouse of work, but when you're done, you have EXACTLY what you want on your system; nothing more- no bloat at all.
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: lazygamer on 15 August 2002, 21:16: Sorry Creedon, upping the difficulty level is one thing, but I have a hard enough time compling a "hello world" program. ;)

What does everyone else think of Suse?
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: lazygamer on 15 August 2002, 21:18: Hmmm Libranet sounds interesting, Debian=uber powerful(so they say), so I can finally gloat over Linux pwning wind0ze speed wise.(something it's SUSPOSED to do day and night)

Of course I would never touch Debian without such a nice n00b friendly interface.
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: voidmain on 16 August 2002, 01:20: Actually Debian is uber powerful, but not any more so than any other distribution of Linux. Debian uses the same software that is found on any other Linux distro. The difference is it uses a different package management system and the code is generally scoured more thoroughly before placed in a final release, unlike some other distros.

That usually means Debian is more stable and bug free than the other distros, but it also means you usually won't get the bleeding edge software. However, like any Linux distro, you can install the bleeding edge if you want.

Another difference is there is no "company" behind Debian, although there are other distros that are based off of Debian and there are companies in the background that support it. But those companies are not Debian "drivers".
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: lazygamer on 17 August 2002, 06:59: Well I was very unhappy with Mandrake speedwise. It seems illogical that Linux could be slower then wind0ze because wind0ze is suppose to be a heaping pile of shit codewise. So when I use Linux, I want to say WOW, this goes WAY faster then wind0ze! Mind you, the KDE/GNOME thing makes a HUGE difference. KDE is much quicker, so much quicker that I wondered why the heck Gnome was included. :D

I hope I will have better luck with another distro, because even on KDE, Mandrake DID NOT outperform Windows XP.(But were talking GUI speeds here, program speeds could be different)

Now Mandrake is very good for hardware dectection though. Is it possible that another distro would have better luck with my ADSL?
Title: An interesting Linux question
Post by: choasforages on 17 August 2002, 07:24: maybe redhat 7.3 or 8.0 when it comes out. as for gnomes speed, gnome2 is a hellova lot faster then gnome 1.4.