• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Linux Distro Noob thread of Linux noobs

itxaka said:
The way I roll is:

1 60Gb partition for Windows + apps
1 60Gb partition for linux flavor of the month
1 XGb NTFS partition for sharing everything. There is where I install steam + games, other apps, store my OS isos, virtualbox machines, pictures, docs and music. That way I can access and store everything OS independent in case something bad happens.

Thanks, that's what I was thinking of doing at first. I usually hate putting my data where windows is installed....

I just installed 7, have yet to do ubuntu.

What's the easiest way to create a new partition after installing windows ?

I have an old (old!) partition magic disc somewhere but I'm sure there are easier way to do it now.
 

peakish

Member
BaronLundi said:
Thanks, that's what I was thinking of doing at first. I usually hate putting my data where windows is installed....

I just installed 7, have yet to do ubuntu.

What's the easiest way to create a new partition after installing windows ?

I have an old (old!) partition magic disc somewhere but I'm sure there are easier way to do it now.
The Ubuntu install image includes GParted which is what I usually use to do my partition work. When installing you will get to specify precisely how you want your partitions set up.

In case you want to do it outside of the installation GParted is available as a stand-alone boot CD/USB as well.
 

zoku88

Member
Personally, I've used Kubuntu for a while and there are some things that really tick me off about it (I eventually switched back to Ubuntu.) I wish I could tell you what they were though.

It's just a matter of personally preference. You can have both installed at the same time to try them out.

I wonder when mutter will be finished. I have some version of GNOME 3 installed, but mutter really sucks in it.
 

M3Freak

Banned
Brettison said:

I used an older version of gnome 3 on Fedora 12 several months ago. Even though the newer code is a lot different than what I was using, I liked it a lot better than Gnome 2.whatever.

I was going to upgrade my Fedora 12 desktops to Fedora 14, but now I'll wait for Fedora 15 (gnome 3 is slated to be included in that release).
 

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Never was a big fan, but for some reason I'm digging those pics on the new site for gnome 3. Looks better than unity to me. I must admit before this I wasn't really feeling either.
 

seb

Banned
Speaking of which I have a question for you GAF...
I've always been a big fan of Gnome (who remembers "October Gnome" ? I do !) and it seems Ubuntu is moving away from it more and more with every step they make; the latest being the inclusion of Qt in the default distro. So I'm looking into switching. Which distro today has the best Gnome experience ? I'm looking at Fedora or OpenSuse. Any experiences with Gnome on these distros please ?
 

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
seb said:
Speaking of which I have a question for you GAF...
I've always been a big fan of Gnome (who remembers "October Gnome" ? I do !) and it seems Ubuntu is moving away from it more and more with every step they make; the latest being the inclusion of Qt in the default distro. So I'm looking into switching. Which distro today has the best Gnome experience ? I'm looking at Fedora or OpenSuse. Any experiences with Gnome on these distros please ?

Hard to say. It's weird because you think of Ubuntu has a Gnome distro and Kubuntu as a KDE version, but really since they all launch together you basically get Ubuntu with whatever manager you want. Most big distros do this now a days like say Fedora.

That being said I've been wondering the same thing. Big key at least for me if what the other Ubuntu based distros do. I mean I doubt this will effect say Crunchbag at all. On the flip side will Linux Mint try an adobt the Gnome Unity hybrid?

Also since you can just switch to base gnome for ubuntu does it matter? Then again why are you using Ubuntu if you aren't using their new setup as a lot of the "hooks" are what make Ubuntu Ubuntu. If your using stock gnome what would make it Ubuntu other than the repositories?

On a side note. What kind of distro would you recommend for a 4 gig USB stick? I want something more than just Puppy or DSL, but I only have 4 gigs and not say 8 or 16 which would probably allow me to run just an standard version of any nix distro.
 

cntr

Banned
I'm going to be using a 1 GB RAM 600-ish MHz ancient beast as my regular computer soon, and I'm planning to install Arch on it. Should I go with LXDE or Xfce as my desktop environment? What's the difference between them?
 

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
cntrational said:
I'm going to be using a 1 GB RAM 600-ish MHz ancient beast as my regular computer soon, and I'm planning to install Arch on it. Should I go with LXDE or Xfce as my desktop environment? What's the difference between them?
Not totally sure of the difference, but from what I've seen Xfce looks better to me.
 

Hylian7

Member
I installed Arch on my laptop the other day. Definitely my favorite distro because I can get a useful system out of it and actually learn something about Linux. Also I love the rolling release!
 

zoku88

Member
It would seem to be that Gentoo would be considered the most hardcore. At least, the installation of it.

Arch seems more like for intermediate users.
 

Hylian7

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
Isn't Arch the most "hardcore" Linux?
I guess you could say it is. Basically it's very bare-bones and you really need to read the documentation on this one to understand it (as well as the wiki for it). If you've used Linux before, and know the basics, but really want to learn it (and have a functional system) then Arch is probably what you want.

I wouldn't say it's the absolute most "hardcore" Linux though, Gentoo is. You have to compile your own kernel from source, and the same goes for most of the packages on it.
 
Hylian7 said:
I guess you could say it is. Basically it's very bare-bones and you really need to read the documentation on this one to understand it (as well as the wiki for it). If you've used Linux before, and know the basics, but really want to learn it (and have a functional system) then Arch is probably what you want.

I wouldn't say it's the absolute most "hardcore" Linux though, Gentoo is. You have to compile your own kernel from source, and the same goes for most of the packages on it.

So Arch is like a "Create your own OS" while Gentoo is like "Create your own OS and kernel"?
 

Krelian

Member
Hylian7 said:
I guess you could say it is. Basically it's very bare-bones and you really need to read the documentation on this one to understand it (as well as the wiki for it). If you've used Linux before, and know the basics, but really want to learn it (and have a functional system) then Arch is probably what you want.

I wouldn't say it's the absolute most "hardcore" Linux though, Gentoo is. You have to compile your own kernel from source, and the same goes for most of the packages on it.
I don't think Gentoo is all that "hardcore" to be honest. There are scripts that automatically compile everything for you. The most "hardcore" thing would be choosing your kernel options and you can just copy some config file from another distro to make things easier.

The most "hardcore" would be building your own distro or maintaining an own LFS (Linux from scratch) distribution.
 
I've been doing updates to my OS, but for some reason it states that I haven't updated my OS in over two weeks:

1zd206f.png


It gives me that message above too.

Is there anyway to fix this?
 

Dragon

Banned
cntrational said:
I'm going to be using a 1 GB RAM 600-ish MHz ancient beast as my regular computer soon, and I'm planning to install Arch on it. Should I go with LXDE or Xfce as my desktop environment? What's the difference between them?

I was able to get Lubuntu to run on 440 mb of ram (stupid video shared RAM) for my friend and it's been fine.
 

zoku88

Member
Uhm, Flying, what does it say under "details"? Are the fetches failing?

What happens when you do 'sudo apt-get update' in the terminal?
 
zoku88 said:
Uhm, Flying, what does it say under "details"? Are the fetches failing?

What happens when you do 'sudo apt-get update' in the terminal?

I mean it does updates and all, it just says my package information wasn't updated.

Under details it says this:

W:Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/canoiccal-dx-team/une/ubuntu/dists/maverick/main/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found
, W:Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/canoiccal-dx-team/une/ubuntu/dists/maverick/main/binary-amd64/Packages.gz 404 Not Found
, E:Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead.
 

zoku88

Member
Have you been messing with the package sources list? Canonical isn't spelled correctly...

Like, if you navigate to the link you just provided, it doesn't even work. But if you correct the spelling, it works. Maybe if you update your package source list with the correct spelling it will work.
 
zoku88 said:
Have you been messing with the package sources list? Canonical isn't spelled correctly...

Like, if you navigate to the link you just provided, it doesn't even work. But if you correct the spelling, it works. Maybe if you update your package source list with the correct spelling it will work.

How do I change my source list?
 

zoku88

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
How do I change my source list?
Two ways.

You can edit /etc/apt/sources.list using a text editor

or

Go to update-manager -> Settings... -> Other Software, click on the PPA we were talking about and click on edit and you can change the URI. You will prolly have to change it both for the binary and source code versions.
 

panda21

Member
zoku88 said:
It would seem to be that Gentoo would be considered the most hardcore. At least, the installation of it.

Arch seems more like for intermediate users.

i agree about Arch, gentoo i dont think is too hard because its almost all automated.

slackware is the most hardcore whilst still being a distro i would say, but i dont think its actually better for it. like the slackbuilds system is cool, but ends up being more of a pain for no real benefit, when you could just use something like debian.
 

zoku88

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
Yay it worked! Thank you zoku 88!
No problem.
panda21 said:
i agree about Arch, gentoo i dont think is too hard because its almost all automated.

slackware is the most hardcore whilst still being a distro i would say, but i dont think its actually better for it. like the slackbuilds system is cool, but ends up being more of a pain for no real benefit, when you could just use something like debian.
I think it's only as automated as you want it to be. My friends were more of a "do it yourself" kinda people, so they usually just manually configured things
 

cntr

Banned
TheBranca18 said:
I was able to get Lubuntu to run on 440 mb of ram (stupid video shared RAM) for my friend and it's been fine.
Hmm, interesting. Will consider using that, then.

Though, I maaay end up not being forced to use such a low-end system, but we'll see.
 

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Flying_Phoenix said:
So people what's your favourite Linux distro?

Top 3 Favorite Distros

1. Ubuntu 10.10

Pretty straight forward. It's easy to get into, has a ton of support, and a high user base which means you get a ton of support both in terms of updates and programs as well as finding info/help if need be.

2. Puppy Linux 5.2

My personal go to lightweight distro. Extremely small download, light footprint, loads entirely into the ram, can run on virtually anything from the last decade as long as it has 256 ram, and perfect when you need a quick linux distro to fix things. Always liked this one, but gets an extra plus now that it's an Ubuntu downstream so you can get access to all of the Ubuntu packages!

3. Linux Mint 10

Recent user of this one. Always heard it was like a perfect entry version of Linux based off of Ubuntu. Initially never tried it cause I said isn't that what Ubuntu itself is? Checked out version 10 aka Julia, and liked the setup. Nice version of Gnome, not a hardcore FOSS distro so it just installs everything on the dvd version so shit just works, and like Puppy has Ubuntu as it upstream so you get access to everything. Best alternative if something weird in Ubuntu doesn't work or fit for you.
 
cntrational said:
Hmm, interesting. Will consider using that, then.

Though, I maaay end up not being forced to use such a low-end system, but we'll see.
Man your local thrift stores should have more modern pcs available then that, hell found a dell tower being thrown away, had 512mb of ram, and a celeron d 2.5ghz cpu, and an 80gb hard drive, runs great lol
 

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Mr Nightman said:
Man your local thrift stores should have more modern pcs available then that, hell found a dell tower being thrown away, had 512mb of ram, and a celeron d 2.5ghz cpu, and an 80gb hard drive, runs great lol

Hmmm makes me wonder if I could pick up a cheapy laptop that I could format and put Linux on. Doesn't need to be ball'n. I'd take a 5 or 6 year old XP laptop that I could format and put linux on.
 
Brettison said:
Hmmm makes me wonder if I could pick up a cheapy laptop that I could format and put Linux on. Doesn't need to be ball'n. I'd take a 5 or 6 year old XP laptop that I could format and put linux on.
Hell yea man, you would not believe what people give and or throw away. The two desktop pcs at my dads place are both that were being tossed in the trash, and have both up and running with xp great, can't imagine how snappy they would be running linux
 

Pctx

Banned
Well finally jumped in as I got promoted at work to the system administrator and am needing to bone up on Linux.


I've got my Core i5 rocking a dual boot for win7 and ubuntu. Switching my 1201n to ubuntu.... And I've got an older MacBook pro running 10.6. My dependence on Microsoft is finally dwindling! ;)

Great thread and I hope to contribute and come with some questions.
 

Toby

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
So yeah I get 1/4th longer battery life when using Ubuntu (including all the tweaks such as Docky) then when running Windows 7...woot!
When you say tweaks, do you just mean desktop personalization, or did you perform some tweaks to enhance battery life?
Last time I tried ubuntu my battery lasted about 3/4 as long as it did with win 7.
 

markot

Banned
yeah, its lame, linux seems to come with fewer power options to extnd battery life. Windows lasts quite abit longer for me.
 

zoku88

Member
Ok, I gots a question for you lot.

So, I want a more recent version of glib than what is in the ubuntu maverick repositories.

Given that I have the source for the most recent version of glib, how can I install it such that:

1) I don't have two different versions of glib installed
2) I don't have to remove the packages that depend on my glib-dev package (apparently, 100 packages.)

In summary, I basically want to take the source, and instead of doing make install after compiling it, I want to install it as a package that upgrades the package I already have.

I was thinking of using checkinstall (I have actually never heard of this and tried it out.) But I'm not sure what I need to do to make it "upgrade" the package I already have. (would changing the package name be enough?)
 

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Can't you just add the PPA to the Ubuntu repository and it'll update your existing install? (don't quote me on this)
 

zoku88

Member
Brettison said:
Can't you just add the PPA to the Ubuntu repository and it'll update your existing install? (don't quote me on this)
The problem is that it's "outdated" (for maverick). It's 2.26, which is the most recent stable release. The natty repositories have 2.27.

http://packages.ubuntu.com/maverick/libglib2.0-dev
http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/libglib2.0-dev

Unless there is some other PPA that I'm unaware of, I have to install it from source.

Looking at it closely, it looks like I could download the natty source and turn that into a binary package and install that and that may "upgrade" my package.

EDIT: You might find it weird that I'm installing an unstable dev package. It's to solve a dependency for an unstable program XD
 
Brettison said:
Top 3 Favorite Distros

1. Ubuntu 10.10

Pretty straight forward. It's easy to get into, has a ton of support, and a high user base which means you get a ton of support both in terms of updates and programs as well as finding info/help if need be.

2. Puppy Linux 5.2

My personal go to lightweight distro. Extremely small download, light footprint, loads entirely into the ram, can run on virtually anything from the last decade as long as it has 256 ram, and perfect when you need a quick linux distro to fix things. Always liked this one, but gets an extra plus now that it's an Ubuntu downstream so you can get access to all of the Ubuntu packages!

3. Linux Mint 10

Recent user of this one. Always heard it was like a perfect entry version of Linux based off of Ubuntu. Initially never tried it cause I said isn't that what Ubuntu itself is? Checked out version 10 aka Julia, and liked the setup. Nice version of Gnome, not a hardcore FOSS distro so it just installs everything on the dvd version so shit just works, and like Puppy has Ubuntu as it upstream so you get access to everything. Best alternative if something weird in Ubuntu doesn't work or fit for you.

Great reply.

Toby said:
When you say tweaks, do you just mean desktop personalization, or did you perform some tweaks to enhance battery life?
Last time I tried ubuntu my battery lasted about 3/4 as long as it did with win 7.

Desktop personalisation ala docky and compiz.

Vic said:
ArchLinux, no contest.

Why?
 

Vic

Please help me with my bad english
Flying_Phoenix said:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

The Arch Way
From ArchWiki

The following five core principles comprise what is commonly referred to as the Arch Way, or the Arch Philosophy, perhaps best summarized by the acronym KISS for Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Contents

* 1 Simplicity
* 2 Code-correctness over convenience
* 3 User-centric
* 4 Openness
* 5 Freedom
* 6 See also

Simplicity

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. — Leonardo Da Vinci

Simplicity is absolutely the principal objective behind Arch development. Many GNU/Linux distributions define themselves as "simple." However, simplicity itself has many definitions.

Arch Linux defines simplicity as without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications, and provides a lightweight UNIX-like base structure that allows an individual user to shape the system according to their own needs. In short: an elegant, minimalist approach.

A lightweight base structure built with high programming standards will tend to have lower system resource demands. The base system is devoid of all clutter that may obscure important parts of the system, or make access to them difficult or convoluted. It has a streamlined set of succinctly commented, clean configuration files that are arranged for quick access and editing, with no cumbersome graphical configuration tools to hide possibilities from the user. An Arch Linux system is therefore readily configurable to the very last detail.

Complexity without complication.

Arch Linux retains the inherent complexities of a GNU/Linux system intact, while keeping them well organized and transparent. Arch Linux developers and users believe that trying to hide the complexities of a system actually results in an even more complex system, and is therefore to be avoided.

Code-correctness over convenience

The Arch Linux system places precedence upon elegance of design as well as clean, simple code, rather than unnecessary patching, automation, eye candy or "newbie-friendliness." Software patches are therefore kept to an absolute minimum; ideally, never. Simple implementation shall always trump simple user interface.

Simplicity of implementation, code-elegance, and minimalism shall always remain the reigning priorities of Arch development.

Concepts, designs and features are generated and implemented by using the Arch Way principles as a guide, rather than bowing to external influences. The development team are resolute in their commitment and dedication to the Arch Way philosophy. If you share their vision, you are welcomed and encouraged to use Arch.

User-centric

Whereas many GNU/Linux distributions attempt to be more user-friendly, Arch Linux has always been, and will always remain user-centric.

Arch Linux targets and accommodates competent GNU/Linux users by giving them complete control and responsibility over the system.

Arch Linux users fully manage the system on their own. The system itself will offer little assistance, except for a simple set of maintenance tools that are designed to perfectly relay the user's commands to the system. Arch developers do not expend energy re-inventing GUI system tools; Arch is founded upon sensible design and excellent documentation.

This user-centric design necessarily implies a certain "do-it-yourself" approach to using the Arch distribution. Rather than pursuing assistance or requesting a new feature to be implemented by developers, Arch Linux users have a tendency to solve problems themselves and share the results with the community and development team – a "do first, then ask" philosophy. This is especially true for user-contributed packages found in the Arch User Repository – the official Arch Linux repository for community-maintained packages.

Openness

Openness goes hand in hand with simplicity, and is also one of the guiding principles of Arch Linux development.

Arch Linux uses simple tools, that are selected or built with openness of the sources and their output in mind.

Openness removes all boundaries and abstraction between the user and the system, providing more control, while simultaneously simplifying system maintenance.

The open nature of Arch Linux also implies a fairly steep learning curve, but experienced Arch Linux users tend to find other more closed systems much more inconvenient to control.

The openness principle extends to its community members as well. Arch Linux users are known to be very open with help and advice, as well as with package contributions to the community maintained Arch User Repository.

Freedom

Another guiding principle of Arch Linux development is freedom. The users are not only permitted to make all decisions concerning system configuration, but also choose what their system will be.

By keeping the system simple, Arch Linux provides the freedom to make any choice about the system.

A freshly installed Arch Linux system contains only basic core components with no automatic configuration performed. Users are able to configure the system as they wish, from the shell. From the start of the installation procedure, every component of the system is 100% transparent and accessible for instant access, removal, or replacement by alternative components.

The large number of packages and build scripts in the various Arch Linux repositories also support freedom of choice, offering free and open source software for those who prefer it, as well as proprietary software packages, for those who embrace functionality over ideology. It is the user who chooses.

As Judd Vinet, the founder of the Arch Linux project said: "[Arch Linux] is what you make it."
See also

The Arch Way v2.0
Retrieved from "https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way"
 

Vic

Please help me with my bad english
angelfly said:
Arch is just a poor mans Gentoo
Thank god for that! I'm not interested into compiling everything from the most basic lib pkg to the kernel.
 
Top Bottom