TCH-Rob Posted September 18, 2004 Posted September 18, 2004 I am starting a new thread so as not to further hijack the Firefox thread. After trying to add Solaris 10 to a second partition and it failing miserably, to the point that I couldnt get back into windows, I decided to start from scratch. I reinstalled Windows, then Solaris again to see if I had made a mistake. I got the same issue again. I decided I am not going to use Solaris and reloaded FreeBSD on my computer. I took an 80 Gig drive and split it into two 30 Gig and a 20 Gig partition. I installed BSD and realised it wont do DVD writing too well so I installed Windows. Being that MS has to write to C I had to delete BSD and Install 2K first and reinstall SBD. Last night was long. Now I am dual booting and just using 2k for my DVD projects. I still have 20 Gig open for whatever so I was thinking on having a three way. Any ideas on what OS I should try? Quote
borfast Posted September 18, 2004 Posted September 18, 2004 (edited) I'm not giving you any more suggestions for trying out operating systems Here's a list of what I'd like to try out: 1 - Darwin, the OS X core 2 - Dragon Fly BSD 3 - Yoper, a REALLY fast Linux distro (it is, I tried it ) There's some other stuff, like the AmigaOS, which I think has a port for x86 CPUs. I'll add more to the list if I think of them Edited September 18, 2004 by TCH-Raul Quote
joef Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 Rob: Raul has some very interesting choices. I'll second the Yoper comments. I tried it on my old PIII 450 laptop that's stuck at 64M of RAM and it ran surprisingly well. If you want a Linux distro that's mostly source-based like BSD, try Crux. It's very quick, though the default window manager is WindowMaker, so that'll always seem faster than KDE, which is what Yoper runs as default. But you have the same ports-like, build-from-sources system without having to start from scratch like Gentoo. And there's Slackware, of course. That's my favorite distro. It's supposed to be the most Unix-like. As for ones I'd like to try, I've always wanted to try one of those Be-like OSes. They seem different enough from Linux/BSD to be interesting. Have fun, joe f. Quote
TCH-Don Posted October 5, 2004 Posted October 5, 2004 Wow, Yoper looks interesting. I am getting a handme down PIII next year, and may try this one too. Quote
vengavenga Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 Oh Raul, Now look what you've gone and done! I've tried two or three times to make the switch from Win to Linux, but I've never really got past the first hurdle ... there's always been some hardware issue or other. I've known that these issues would all be solvable, but when digging around on the net to find the solution I've realised that I just don't have time to play around with it ... back to MS every time Promised myself that I'd stick to what I know in future and not waste any more time with Linux ... Then you go and post a link to Yoper! So far, I'm resisting ... but the weekend is a different matter! Ali Quote
borfast Posted October 6, 2004 Posted October 6, 2004 I'm adding another Linux distro I'd like to try: Ubuntu Linux. Well, actually I already did It seems pretty cool, though it's still in development phase. If only the developers could fix those nasty bugs... But I'm falling in love with Debian's APT package management. I already love it using it with RPMs on Fedora but... I don't know... the "original" just feels so much better... OK, enough geek talk Quote
TCH-Rob Posted October 6, 2004 Author Posted October 6, 2004 If I can stop having "Rob moments" I will get Yoper installed. Dang GUI fdisk is throwing me off track. Quote
champagnemojo Posted October 7, 2004 Posted October 7, 2004 I'm adding another Linux distro I'd like to try: Ubuntu Linux. Well, actually I already did It seems pretty cool, though it's still in development phase. If only the developers could fix those nasty bugs... But I'm falling in love with Debian's APT package management. I already love it using it with RPMs on Fedora but... I don't know... the "original" just feels so much better... OK, enough geek talk Raul, I've heard alot about Ubuntu. I can't figure out what would make it better than a pure Debian install though. Looking at the screenshots, it seems to just be using a slightly modified version of the new Sarge installer...so I don't think it'd be any easier to install. I realize that they will do more frequent releases, but as long as you include unstable sources in your sources.list file Debian packages are kept as up-to-date as any other distro. All you have to run is a dist-upgrade with apt and everything's updated. What am I missing? Quote
borfast Posted October 7, 2004 Posted October 7, 2004 Well, champagne, to be totally honest, I have no idea, since I have only used Debian quite a few years ago and back then I knew nearly nothing about Linux (which makes me think that being able to get it installed was quite an achievement for me, at the time :lol ), so I really don't know if/why Ubuntu is better. I don't think you should judge it by the screenshots, though. From what I've read, Ubuntu's main advantage is that it's more clean and simple (for instance, less files in /etc and some other stuff... don't ask, I don't remember ). Here's a few links worth reading: http://usalug.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4125 http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8407 Quote
champagnemojo Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 That is very impressive actually Raul. I got into linux about a year ago or so, and when I tried to install Slackware back then I failed miserably. I hear Debian used to be quite a feat to install. It's actually quite easy now as long as you have a little linux experience...in fact, you saw the new installer when you installed Ubuntu. Let's face it, installing Debian now can't be too complicated if I can do it. I'll read up on Ubuntu...I've just always used Debian in one form or another, and I guess it's hard for me to see where it should be simplified beyond maybe the installer (which could perhaps still use a bit of simplifying so that those newer to linux could install it, but isn't simplified in Ubuntu from what I can tell). I definitely agree about the greatness of the apt system though. You type three words and you have a new program installed...or you've completely upgraded your system. Let's see windows do that. Quote
borfast Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Champagnemojo, I must admit that I've been feeling curious about Debian, lately. But one thing that has always bothered me is the lack of up-to-date software. I know there's the unstable repository but do you have Gnome 2.8 there, for instance? Also, why do they call it "unstable", "testing", and "stable"? Well, the stable one is obvious, I guess but why "unstable"? From what I understand, the software in the unstable repository is not unstable (as in "crashing your computer"), it simply hasn't been tested long enough to be considered stable by Debian's standards, right? I mean, mostly everybody else considers it stable but the Debian guys want to be extra sure about it and so they keep it in testing phase for more time. Is this correct or is there another reason? Quote
champagnemojo Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 The stable, testing, and unstable monikers are pretty much just like you say. The notion is that stable is rock-solid and backed by the debian team. Testing and unstable are both actually quite stable though. There's a fourth type of repository they call "experimental" which is where the real bleeding-edge apps are at. I've used experimental packages on occasion, and didn't have any problems...but they are more risky. I think part of why it takes so long for something to move into stable is just because of how bureaucratized the debian system is. But I've used the unstable packages for a year now and have always had a stable system. The only real downside to Debian that I can see is that the people on the support lists and forums for debian have a reputation for not being very friendly much of the time...maybe that's just a linux thing though, I don't know. So I've just always gone to the Knoppix forum with my Debian questions...people there are very friendly and since knoppix is based on debian, much of the same stuff applies. And yep, Gnome 2.8 is in unstable now. Has been since mid-September in fact. I love XFCE4 myself though...you should try it if you haven't yet (or haven't in a while). Quote
borfast Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 I have tried XFCE4 some time ago (when it was still just XFCE, not version 4 ) and I also like it very much. In fact, I have used it for some time. But there was something that made me go back to Gnome. Can't remember what it was, though... :\ As for the repositories, well, if they have fairly recent packages there, I think I might give Debian another chance... Could you enlighten me about a few more Debian related questions, please? Because of all the burocracy, as you said, Debian's releases take really long before they get... well, released What will I miss if I use Woody instead of Sarge? How can I get Sarge (supposing it's available for testing, which is more than likely to be )? Do you know if Sarge is stable enough for a regular computer and everyday use? Thanks Quote
champagnemojo Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 As long as you use the debian repositories you should be very pleased with the package availability. The official stable releases come very few and far between...in fact, the last stable release was like a year ago I think. But they've come up with a new, more intuitive installer that is updated along with the testing packages. So don't install from woody, install using the new sarge installer. It will give you a Debian sarge (i.e. testing) install. My suggestion would be to then add in unstable repositories to your sources.list file and do an apt-get dist-upgrade. That will give you a Debian sid install (unstable). Despite the unstable moniker it will actually be very stable, and will allow you to get the most recent releases whenever you want to by doing an apt-get upgrade. My system never crashes unless I do something stupid to cause it...which I've done a few times. You should also check out the new xfce4. It's come a long way from xfce 3. My guess is that whatever you didn't like has probably been remedied. Here's a quick screenshot...because I like excuses to take screenshots. Quote
borfast Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 (edited) I did use XFCE4 too Actually, that's the one I used for some time as my main desktop environment. I mentioned XFCE3 but I wasn't clear about what I wanted to say. I meant that I know XFCE since version 3 but I have used version 4 much more than version 3. It has indeed come a very long way from version 3! Anyway, you've convinced me to try Debian I'm heading to the downloads page right now but I'm not sure if I'm seing this right... I know Debian is famous, among other things, for the enormous amount of packages it has available but come on... 14 ISO CD images to download?!?!?!? Raul presses the back button in his browser and looks for the Net Install link... OK, now that's better, a 107 MB ISO CD Image for the Net installer Got it from http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-test...386-netinst.iso Argh! i386! When will distro makers start compiling stuff for athlon, or at least i686?!? By the way, does Debian use any kind of "trick" to make it go faster? Like pre-linking or some other stuff? I've seen that they don't do the best they could do (compiling for a more recent platform instead of i386) but perhaps they have some other tricks up their sleeve... And how about security? One of the nice things about fedora is that they compile their stuff with memory overflow protection, or something like that... does Debian use something like that? Well, guess I'll go back to sleep, now. The download will be finished in about 30 minutes but it will wait for me here. I'll give it a try on my brand new Acer 4001 WLMi laptop By the way, does sarge have non-destructive partitioning tools, like fips (old), qparted, gparted or some other? Thanks again Edited October 9, 2004 by TCH-Raul Quote
champagnemojo Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 Yeah, I hear you about the i386. Of course, you can always compile your own kernel. The 14 cds would give you every package there is for Debian...I don't think you need those. Debian does have prelinking available...but I don't know enough about it to tell you if it's used the way you're wanting it to be used or not. I know that I can setup up prelinking on my OpenOffice.org install and all. I also don't know enough to tell you whether or not it has such security features...although I do know that the Debian folks are I AM A SPAMMER about security. With regards to the partitioning...do you mean in the installer or available in general? You can get all kinds of partition editing stuff for Debian. I've always used qtparted myself. Quote
borfast Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 I do compile my own kernels but I wish they'd compile the other packages for other architectures. It's a real pain to do it by hand, after having the whole system installed - I know, I tried it with Fedora... Well, I did download the ISO image and I did try to install it on my laptop but unfortunately, the darn thing didn't want to boot, after that It installed everything just fine (the base system, from the netinstall CD) and it starts booting up normally but when it comes to some USB stuff detection, it just crashes Actually, it crashes with just about everything I tried: Yoper, Mandrake Move, Debian and Slax. I also tried Fedora Core 2 but seems my instalation DVD is ready to be dumped in the garbage, so it didn't manage to finish the instalation. I'm re-downloading the ISO images for the CDs and I'll give it another go tomorrow. As for the partitioning, I meant in the installer. After using it, I don't think it's non-destructive. I was going to give it a try but then I though better and divided the HDD in two with Partition Magic, before using the installer partition manager to divide the new partition. You know, just to be safe Well, guess I'll have to wait a little longer to try Debian Seems I can't install it on my new laptop and I don't have enough disk space on my desktop for a new partition. Which reminds me that I need to make a backup of everything important I have in it and format the whole thing. The Windows install is completely messed up (hey, it's normal, after all, it's more than 6 months old ) and I managed to mess Fedora a little bit, by mixing RPM packages from different repositories - now I don't know which packages I should keep, which should I upgrade, which are just taking up space... :\ Well, back to trying to get Linux (any distro) on my laptop... Quote
champagnemojo Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Dang...that sucks. Maybe try Kanotix. It has the great hardware detection from knoppix and includes a lot of drivers not included in other distros. And the cheatcodes are great for computers that won't seem to boot other distros such as yours. Also it will basically give you a debian sid install if you install it to harddrive...even upgrades go smoothly. The only downside is you'll have to remove alot of unnecessary stuff. On the plus side it's an insanely easy install. The architecture you brought up has me wondering. Do other distros have full package repositories available for i686? I guess I just figured most of them were created for i386 for compatibility reasons. Going back to Kanotix, I believe everything on it is supposedly i686 optimized. I know the kernel is anyways. It'd be worth a shot...I have it on my laptop and it really is basically indiscernable from my pure Debian installs. Quote
TCH-Rob Posted October 10, 2004 Author Posted October 10, 2004 I installed the i386 distro of FreeBSD and I have an Athlon. Should I have used something else? Too many Linux distros to choose from, I cant make up my mind. Just dont want to lose the partions I already have and I kind of like the BSD boot loader. Quote
borfast Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 (edited) Rob, each Linux distro has it's good and bad things. I am used to Red Hat / Fedora Core. It's a Linux system and it's Free (meaning I can change it around as I like) but it also has a lot of tools that makes life easier for you when you don't want to spend time looking for configuration files and how to change them and stuf flike that. I love the apt-get system they ported from Debian. Too bad that some repositories have conflicting packages between them. You can easily mess up your system if you install the wrong packages... for instance, for some reason, after I did an upgrade a few days ago, all the CD/DVD burning programs I have stopped working. I can run the program but it tells me there's no recording device available. Go figure... That's one of the reasons I'd like to try Debian. They also use APT (they're the ones who created it), have a HUGE software repository and I know their distro is very very stable. Should you have used something else? I don't know. If you feel comfortable with FreeBSD, I guess you're OK. I always like to try different things before settling on one but then again, I know I could live with many of the linux distros out there but I just need to see the others, see the eyecandy, the little tools that make life easier, see which distros have the most up to date software... In the end, I guess it's a matter of deciding if you want to stay with something that simply works for you or if you want to spend the time looking for something else that will also work but will do so more gracefully, with more eyecandy, more bells and whistles... PS - You don't need to lose the partitions, you can use non-destructive partitioning software, like qtparted or gparted (both based on libparted), which, like Partition Magic, for instance, let you resize any partition you want. Edited October 10, 2004 by TCH-Raul Quote
TCH-Rob Posted October 10, 2004 Author Posted October 10, 2004 What I meant Raul by something else was that I installed i386 version for my Athlon and you were talking of i686. I was wondering if it matters. Quote
borfast Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 (edited) LOL @ myself Sorry about the confusion, Rob. I definitely need to sleep more I did find it odd of you to be asking that, since you're no stranger to the *nix world but after a sleepless night finishing a project for the networking class on college, I just wrote my answer and didn't look back Well, if there's an i686 version of FreeBSD available, you should install it. Assuming, of course, you have a computer more recent than a Pentium II. Basically i386, i686, athlon, etc, mean that those packages were compiled with all the optimizations for that type of processor. The result: a faster system Edited October 10, 2004 by TCH-Raul Quote
TCH-Rob Posted October 10, 2004 Author Posted October 10, 2004 Well slap me and call me Suzy. I guess I will have to look into that. Thanks for the tip. Thumbs Up Quote
borfast Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 No problem If you do find optimized packages and try them, let us know what you think about it Quote
champagnemojo Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Raul, how noticeable is the performance increase when everything is optimized for your processor? I've always found my debian installs to be pretty fast...but now you have me wondering if I could do better. Quote
borfast Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Well, when I tried Yoper (i686 optimized and uses pre-linking), I noticed a considerable difference to my FC2 install - and Yoper was running on VMWare Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.