Foo - Who here runs Linux?

I'm running DSL (Damn Small Linux) on my old computer (this computer) right now.
I downloading MEPIS, more of a good to go type of Linux right now.
Its really easy, and its way more reliable than Windows. Is anybody on here running Linux?
If anybody wants to start running Linux, I'll help you.

I run unix if I decide that *nix works for my objective. Usually freebsd but sometimes open, again depending on my objective.

I dual boot XP Pro and Ubuntu on my linux, and running ubuntu in VMware on my mac laptop at school.

I switched my desktop at work from XP to Ubuntu. I also run Red Hat and Apache at work for our web sites. At home I have a Debian LAMP to run my personal web site. One of my favourite small distros is Puppy Linux. You can run it off a flash drive and since it runs in memory it's super fast.

I dual boot XP Pro and Ubuntu on my linux, and running ubuntu in VMware on my mac laptop at school.

Are you liking VMWare? I have not head the best results w/ it. I set up VMware in Ubuntu to run Win XP and it's rather slow and unresponsive at times.

Are you liking VMWare? I have not head the best results w/ it. I set up VMware in Ubuntu to run Win XP and it's rather slow and unresponsive at times.

I am running beta fusion, and so far haven't noticed any problems. You do need to have at least 2gig of RAM for it to run smoothly thought. I setup VMWare so it uses about 1.5GIG. Having dual core CPU like Core2 Duo wouldn't hurt either.

I have a couple of Linux servers in the basement for the family web site. One running Fedora (phasing that out) the newer one running Ubuntu Feisty Fawn. I still keep an XP box in the kitchen as the main family pc - I'm an old guy :-)

I have run Linux before and after I escape from software mid-september, I am thinking of switching over all of us - tired of Windows - sick and tired of it.

<<< Ubuntu + Beryl.

I am running beta fusion, and so far haven't noticed any problems. You do need to have at least 2gig of RAM for it to run smoothly thought. I setup VMWare so it uses about 1.5GIG. Having dual core CPU like Core2 Duo wouldn't hurt either.

That's probably my problem I have 1 GB RAM and assigned 512 to VMware.

BT, how do you like Beryl?

I am a Linux user, Ubuntu Feisty and Kubuntu Gutsy at home, Dapper on my school server, DSL from a flash drive on the office PC, etc.

Joey French

BT, how do you like Beryl?

It freaking pwns.

I can't believe Microsoft is actually trying to sell Vista's "Aero" garbage when Beryl is right there for free.

About it's performance, lots of VRAM helps. :D

It freaking pwns.

I can't believe Microsoft is actually trying to sell Vista's "Aero" garbage when Beryl is right there for free.

About it's performance, lots of VRAM helps. :D


Cool- thanks!

That's probably my problem I have 1 GB RAM and assigned 512 to VMware.

With virtualizing you definately need more. The more the better. You need a solid amount for the base OS and then a decent amount to split into the virtualizations.

OpenBSD on my firewall, CentOS 5 on my backup server (going to Zenserver), and Zenwalk 4.6.1 on my desktop.

Any Slackers here?

OpenBSD on my firewall, CentOS 5 on my backup server (going to Zenserver), and Zenwalk 4.6.1 on my desktop.

Any Slackers here?

On and off...but then I always hit bsd again. While similar in OS build, the extras don't interest me

Main file server is Fedora. No, its not as "in" as Ubuntu, but it has stood the test of time well (I started using RedHat over ages ago, when rpm became a true program and not just a perl script.)

If you are not doing anything that requires Windows, nothing is stopping you from a RedHat upgrade. Even if you have stuff requiring Windows, there is always Cedega.

Main file server is Fedora. No, its not as "in" as Ubuntu, but it has stood the test of time well (I started using RedHat over ages ago, when rpm became a true program and not just a perl script.)

If you are not doing anything that requires Windows, nothing is stopping you from a RedHat upgrade. Even if you have stuff requiring Windows, there is always Cedega.

I'm paying for Cedega.

It's well worth the money, especially for budget (cheapass) gamers who don't want to buy Windows.

I run Fedora 6 with a MythTV installation but on the home computer, I use XP or Vista. Linux is good but there are times when configuring a device reminds me of Windows 3.1 or DOS. You know what I mean - open a file, add a line, issue a command, etc. Sometimes it requires a bit of research to make it work, although I am fairly new to Linux as well.

I run Fedora 6 with a MythTV installation but on the home computer, I use XP or Vista. Linux is good but there are times when configuring a device reminds me of Windows 3.1 or DOS. You know what I mean - open a file, add a line, issue a command, etc. Sometimes it requires a bit of research to make it work, although I am fairly new to Linux as well.

How do you like MythTV. I have been considering setting one up for my home too.

Sometimes it requires a bit of research to make it work

Read 50 manual pages, browse a few hundred posts online, give up, ask a question on a Linux forum, get told to read 50 more manual pages and browse a few hundred more posts online, none of which actually answer your question, then give up again and just start randomly screwing around with settings and config files until, either, the thing starts working, or, you hose the entire system and have to reinstall. Sound about right?

I've only ever gotten two Linux installs to work completely, consistently and properly. I custom compiled 'em from scratch, exactly for the specific hardware, and they each serve only one very specific duty. (One is a fileserver, the other is a MythTV box.) Even in those two cases, I only resorted to Linux because the machines are non-standard hardware that won't run properly with anything else. Granted, those two machines work quite well for what they do, but they only do the one specific task, and I never dare upgrade anything in 'em.

I've tried Linux many other times on other machines, wanting to give it a chance as a general purpose OS, but every time it always proves not to be worth the trouble. I can always go from a blank machine to a fully working lightweight Windows install with about an hour of time invested, when doing similar with Linux always seems to take at least a full afternoon, usually several, and even then there's always something left that doesn't work right. (And that includes Ubuntu.) I don't love Windows, but damn, there's just no comparison.

Real Unix, now, that's another matter. A well-designed Unix system is a wonderful thing.

Main file server is Fedora. No, its not as "in" as Ubuntu, but it has stood the test of time well (I started using RedHat over ages ago, when rpm became a true program and not just a perl script.)

If you are not doing anything that requires Windows, nothing is stopping you from a RedHat upgrade. Even if you have stuff requiring Windows, there is always Cedega.

I still use FC3 to run some Intranet applications. I have not turned this machine off in almost two years.


Read 50 manual pages, browse a few hundred posts online, give up, ask a question on a Linux forum, get told to read 50 more manual pages and browse a few hundred more posts online, none of which actually answer your question, then give up again and just start randomly screwing around with settings and config files until, either, the thing starts working, or, you hose the entire system and have to reinstall. Sound about right?

I've only ever gotten two Linux installs to work completely, consistently and properly. I custom compiled 'em from scratch, exactly for the specific hardware, and they each serve only one very specific duty. (One is a fileserver, the other is a MythTV box.) Even in those two cases, I only resorted to Linux because the machines are non-standard hardware that won't run properly with anything else. Granted, those two machines work quite well for what they do, but they only do the one specific task, and I never dare upgrade anything in 'em.

I've tried Linux many other times on other machines, wanting to give it a chance as a general purpose OS, but every time it always proves not to be worth the trouble. I can always go from a blank machine to a fully working lightweight Windows install with about an hour of time invested, when doing similar with Linux always seems to take at least a full afternoon, usually several, and even then there's always something left that doesn't work right. (And that includes Ubuntu.) I don't love Windows, but damn, there's just no comparison.

Real Unix, now, that's another matter. A well-designed Unix system is a wonderful thing.

In terms of computing time Linux is still in it's infancy. Sometimes I struggle through the same stuff but after it's over typically several things happen. 1) I learned a whole lot which makes future problems easier to solve and 2) I have participated in the community such that when a user next week or 3 years from now googles my Linux forum post he/she will find a solution in minutes. Its a community that is young but strong and growing and one day will be superior IMO. In fact once I started getting a handle on how Linux works and the power of the command line I realize how stupid it was for Windows for example to integrate the desktop into the OS. I like how all programs run independent. And for example users and permissions are intuitive to me on Linux where Windows always throws me off.

I was amazed at how easy it was to get Ubuntu running as my work desk top integrated into our AD environment. The only down side to switching to Linux at work for me is that I still have to run some Windows applications that simply will not run under Wine for example. I blame software manufacturers for this. But I think in the future the term Platform Independence is going to be paramount as a standard develops ( I hope ).

Posting from my Debian box at work.

The biggest thing I see about linux is this one strange problem.
The problem is that games such as Quake 3, which have linux installers don't run as well under linux. Even with the latest video drivers and acceleration enabled, the performance just isn't there. I'm not sure if this is an issue of terrible coding by the devs or if it's the way linux handles video calls. VLC and other media players work just fine.

I've been tempted to go the cedega route, but I think it's asinine to have a monthly fee for it.

All my servers run Linux. CentOS and Debian mix.

Read 50 manual pages, browse a few hundred posts online, give up, ask a question on a Linux forum, get told to read 50 more manual pages and browse a few hundred more posts online, none of which actually answer your question, then give up again and just start randomly screwing around with settings and config files until, either, the thing starts working, or, you hose the entire system and have to reinstall. Sound about right?

I've only ever gotten two Linux installs to work completely, consistently and properly. I custom compiled 'em from scratch, exactly for the specific hardware, and they each serve only one very specific duty. (One is a fileserver, the other is a MythTV box.) Even in those two cases, I only resorted to Linux because the machines are non-standard hardware that won't run properly with anything else. Granted, those two machines work quite well for what they do, but they only do the one specific task, and I never dare upgrade anything in 'em.

I've tried Linux many other times on other machines, wanting to give it a chance as a general purpose OS, but every time it always proves not to be worth the trouble. I can always go from a blank machine to a fully working lightweight Windows install with about an hour of time invested, when doing similar with Linux always seems to take at least a full afternoon, usually several, and even then there's always something left that doesn't work right. (And that includes Ubuntu.) I don't love Windows, but damn, there's just no comparison.

Real Unix, now, that's another matter. A well-designed Unix system is a wonderful thing.

I would agree. Overall Linux seemed to have good intentions but missed the boat by a big margain on documentation and support. While its easy for decent techs to figure linux out, its a hard case to sell to the normal people when the first answer out of any forum is RTFM dumbass...

Personally I ended up picking OS's with good documentation and REALbest practices. When and if I ever eave, the *nix's in place can be learned simply by the documentation I created for them along side the general documentation of the OS.

Currently running Ubuntu Feisty Fawn on the computer at home. It's actually my backup computer. When I bought a new computer last October, I went through all kinds of hell trying to install Linux on the old one, just to play around with it. Then Ubuntu Feisty Fawn was released, and installation was a breeze. The only reason it's my primary computer at the moment is the motherboard on the new computer crapped out and is back with the manufacturer getting a new one installed.

Im using Linspire, and it works well. Ive got it networked to a Windows computer, and they even share a printer. My only wish is that Quickbooks made a Linux version. Ive heard a lot of businesses would switch to all-linux machines if that were available.

I would agree. Overall Linux seemed to have good intentions but missed the boat by a big margain on documentation and support.


Ok, I think you have misunderstood Linux.

1. Linux is Unix Kernel written for i386 processors, basical Unix for an Intel processor.


2. Linux was not created to be a desktop, distrubitions ie Redhat have pushed it to the desktop. It is nearly a carrier class kernel, servers with 1000 days of uptime are not uncommon, Windows can't come close to this.

3. Carrier grade Vendors are using the Linux Kernel in alot of Telecom gear, routers, CLASS 5, PBX's switches and so on.

4. Linux is very well documented, but due to the internet a lot of the good stuff is buried under all the crap.

Linux can make for a very power desktop, you are correct there is a steep learning curve to it, if you coming from a Windows environment. But again Linux was meant to be a desktop OS.

Ok, I think you have misunderstood Linux.

On the contrary, he's understanding it quite well. We aren't discussing the enterprise and embedded applications of Linux (which do indeed work well for their purpose), rather the distributions of Linux that were created entirely for the desktop. And with it being directed at the desktop market, it should have support appropriate for the desktop market. But it doesn't.

While the existing documentation of the basic Linux subsystem may, in fact, be very good, there are still a couple problems:

-What is good for an IT pro isn't necessarily good for anyone else. That is, with all the promotion of Linux on the desktop, it seems all the documentation for the core of Linux is still aimed entirely at the experienced techs rather than the home users. Fine for the experienced techs, but not good when an OS is being directed at the home user, who won't understand most of it.

-The other problem is that the documentation for the rest of the Linux system, that is, the actual desktop applications, is, on the whole, crap.

The situation is aggravated by the generally poor quality of the actual software on desktop versions of Linux. Rather than professional enterprise development, as you have with many of the server- and embedded-level, commercially used versions of Linux, you have a bunch of geeky hobbyists doing this stuff in their spare time. Poor coding skills, conflicting opinions, individual effort rather than collaboration, branch projects... none of those promote good software, and yet it's pretty common in the Linux community. And, when you have buggy software, the best documentation isn't going to do you a damn bit of good.

It really doesn't matter what Linux can do, or what it does in other intended applications. If it's going to be aimed at end users, it needs to be made to not suck for the average end user. Either that, or stop aiming it at end users.

Ok, I think you have misunderstood Linux.

1. Linux is Unix Kernel written for i386 processors, basical Unix for an Intel processor.


2. Linux was not created to be a desktop, distrubitions ie Redhat have pushed it to the desktop. It is nearly a carrier class kernel, servers with 1000 days of uptime are not uncommon, Windows can't come close to this.

3. Carrier grade Vendors are using the Linux Kernel in alot of Telecom gear, routers, CLASS 5, PBX's switches and so on.

4. Linux is very well documented, but due to the internet a lot of the good stuff is buried under all the crap.

Linux can make for a very power desktop, you are correct there is a steep learning curve to it, if you coming from a Windows environment. But again Linux was meant to be a desktop OS.

Thanks I know that. I think you misunderstood where my point was directed. Personally, I don't use linux as a desktop OS (actually I don't use linux, I stick to BSD for any of my non windows boxes). I could run through the *nix's I have experience with but just don't feel like it now.

Number 4 is precisely my point. I get why linux is the way it is, but it is a very poorly organized mess of documentation from lazy IT people not willing to fully document the why, how and who.

Heck compare any BSD to a lot of the linices (hmmmm) and you can see a signifigant difference is quality of documentation. Take it one step further and compare it to the enterprise level unices (SCO and AIX for example) and the documentation is an embarrassing accumulation of turrets induced geekdome.

Again, its my perspective, but when I used to go on linux bbs's back in the day and then later websites, I would get a response like RTFM....simple response back, "which one jackass? Version ooops no numbers, or this site by bob, or this site by jack who hates bob's rebuild or frank?" And in the end, it usually didn't work anyways and you got to try 3 different things only to find out a+c usually got things right.

And as for question number 3, documentation is paramount to these systems. With all the pbx systems I manage the documentation is absolutely spot on, heck one of them even has a basic troubleshooting section with top 10 most common problems. It doesnt leave you hanging with halve truths and misinformation created by IamaLinuxGod4432s.

On the contrary, he's understanding it quite well. We aren't discussing the enterprise and embedded applications of Linux (which do indeed work well for their purpose), rather the distributions of Linux that were created entirely for the desktop. And with it being directed at the desktop market, it should have support appropriate for the desktop market. But it doesn't.

While the existing documentation of the basic Linux subsystem may, in fact, be very good, there are still a couple problems:

-What is good for an IT pro isn't necessarily good for anyone else. That is, with all the promotion of Linux on the desktop, it seems all the documentation for the core of Linux is still aimed entirely at the experienced techs rather than the home users. Fine for the experienced techs, but not good when an OS is being directed at the home user, who won't understand most of it.

-The other problem is that the documentation for the rest of the Linux system, that is, the actual desktop applications, is, on the whole, crap.

The situation is aggravated by the generally poor quality of the actual software on desktop versions of Linux. Rather than professional enterprise development, as you have with many of the server- and embedded-level, commercially used versions of Linux, you have a bunch of geeky hobbyists doing this stuff in their spare time. Poor coding skills, conflicting opinions, individual effort rather than collaboration, branch projects... none of those promote good software, and yet it's pretty common in the Linux community. And, when you have buggy software, the best documentation isn't going to do you a damn bit of good.

It really doesn't matter what Linux can do, or what it does in other intended applications. If it's going to be aimed at end users, it needs to be made to not suck for the average end user. Either that, or stop aiming it at end users.

I guess I could have just said ditto....or +1...:D

On the contrary, he's understanding it quite well. We aren't discussing the enterprise and embedded applications of Linux (which do indeed work well for their purpose), rather the distributions of Linux that were created entirely for the desktop. And with it being directed at the desktop market, it should have support appropriate for the desktop market. But it doesn't.

While the existing documentation of the basic Linux subsystem may, in fact, be very good, there are still a couple problems:

-What is good for an IT pro isn't necessarily good for anyone else. That is, with all the promotion of Linux on the desktop, it seems all the documentation for the core of Linux is still aimed entirely at the experienced techs rather than the home users. Fine for the experienced techs, but not good when an OS is being directed at the home user, who won't understand most of it.

-The other problem is that the documentation for the rest of the Linux system, that is, the actual desktop applications, is, on the whole, crap.

The situation is aggravated by the generally poor quality of the actual software on desktop versions of Linux. Rather than professional enterprise development, as you have with many of the server- and embedded-level, commercially used versions of Linux, you have a bunch of geeky hobbyists doing this stuff in their spare time. Poor coding skills, conflicting opinions, individual effort rather than collaboration, branch projects... none of those promote good software, and yet it's pretty common in the Linux community. And, when you have buggy software, the best documentation isn't going to do you a damn bit of good.

It really doesn't matter what Linux can do, or what it does in other intended applications. If it's going to be aimed at end users, it needs to be made to not suck for the average end user. Either that, or stop aiming it at end users.

I agree with you on all points in regards to it the desktop experience.

I've been running linux for about 6 years.

Originally I ran red hat with the Gnome interface, and then used Knoppix HD installed for about 3, and for the last 2 or so I've been using Kubuntu.

I use it on my laptop with WIFI and on my workstation at home. Fast, doesn't crash, no viruses, burns CD's / DVD's easily. Kicks butt !


I suggest www.distrowatch.com for Linux OS downloads.

Thanks I know that. I think you misunderstood where my point was directed. Personally, I don't use linux as a desktop OS (actually I don't use linux, I stick to BSD for any of my non windows boxes). I could run through the *nix's I have experience with but just don't feel like it now.

Number 4 is precisely my point. I get why linux is the way it is, but it is a very poorly organized mess of documentation from lazy IT people not willing to fully document the why, how and who.

Heck compare any BSD to a lot of the linices (hmmmm) and you can see a signifigant difference is quality of documentation. Take it one step further and compare it to the enterprise level unices (SCO and AIX for example) and the documentation is an embarrassing accumulation of turrets induced geekdome.

Again, its my perspective, but when I used to go on linux bbs's back in the day and then later websites, I would get a response like RTFM....simple response back, "which one jackass? Version ooops no numbers, or this site by bob, or this site by jack who hates bob's rebuild or frank?" And in the end, it usually didn't work anyways and you got to try 3 different things only to find out a+c usually got things right.

And as for question number 3, documentation is paramount to these systems. With all the pbx systems I manage the documentation is absolutely spot on, heck one of them even has a basic troubleshooting section with top 10 most common problems. It doesnt leave you hanging with halve truths and misinformation created by IamaLinuxGod4432s.

I have not used BSD although I have read great things about it, I think Hotmail ran it for some time. I would have to say you speak the truth about the bb and mailing list, every topic turned into a flame war and made them very useless.

I have not used BSD although I have read great things about it, I think Hotmail ran it for some time. I would have to say you speak the truth about the bb and mailing list, every topic turned into a flame war and made them very useless.

BSd is good...I find it very stable and controlled. The guys who run it only authorize stable version of software to be released via the ports so, while it keeps things a little less progressive, it makes the OS with all apps very stable to run.

I prefer real UNIX systems rather Linux, there's a significant difference as already mentioned in the documentation alone. I've got several SUN UltraSparc machines running FreeBSD. A heavier-duty machine might run Solaris which is like comparing a battleship vs. a rowboat w/machine-gun (LINUX).

How do you like MythTV. I have been considering setting one up for my home too.

I really like MythTV. I've been using it for a few years and it is a rock solid PVR. It can automatically detect and cut commercials and you can schedule and watch recordings through a browser from anywhere. There are a lot of great features and I would encourage anyone who is interested to give it a try.

I ran Fedora Core for a year, it was nice. BUt I had to switch back to windows to get some programs running that WINE won't easily do.

I do agree that Linux sometimes is just a lot of work. It's like having a pet, and I don't have time or a desire to deal with it. Dependencies were very frustrating, possibly the most frustrating thing. You're very dependent on the internet and repositories, it sucks if one fails.
And simply installing something was a real pain in the ass, unless it was an .rpm or you could get it through yum.
I gave up on .tar.gz long ago.

I don't know. I think all of you are refering to 'back in the day' and that is certainly true. When was the last time you guys looked for help in Linux. I think it's abundant? Ubuntu and Fedora has very good documentation and using apt has cured almost all dependency problems. Have you ever used help in Windows only to get the complete run around? I totally give up on Windows help but instead refer to the internet. I am a member of a few Linux forums like linuxquestions.org for example and by far the posters there are very courteous and helpful.

The only reason why most people have problems today with Linux on the desktop is because some software like Photoshop simply won't work on Linux or at least not with some 'back in the day' type configuration. But as this community grows these software vendors are going to have to change. There are also 3rd party apps that cost money to run windows programs on Linux like CrossOver.

But taking Ubuntu for example when I installed it at home it recognized every piece of hard ware and configured my network settings to connect to other computers and the internet without a thought. I think Linux today sets a priority on hardware compatibility where as Vista for example forces you to upgrade hard ware just for their OS :rolleyes: At work it took a lot of 'back in the day' configuring to get it to authenticate with AD but for a home user it was a snap. I struggled for an hour last night to get a win XP computer to see a Win 2k computer because I had to enter point and click land and the dreaded wizard... ahhh I hate those things ;)

I used to run red hat and then switched do debian for awhile, like 5 years ago. I broke my laptop screen, so as soon as I fix it, I will have a linux laptop. That won't happen anytime soon, though.

Been running Ubuntu here for almost a year. So far so good, even for someone of my limited intelligence.

Started out with Redhat and Mandrake about 10 years ago and now running OpenSuse 10.2. I like OpenSuse a lot...although Yast is painfully slow. Everything works well and there is a big community online if help is ever needed.

Portables, I dual-boot XP and Ubuntu. (Either Professional on the old laptop, or Tablet PC on the new one, which I'm STILL waiting on.)

My desktop, Ubuntu all the way.

If I could have any machine on the desktop, I'd have a box with Windows (for PC gaming), and a pSeries box for everything else. After getting used to decent IBM iron on a day to day basis, pretty much everything but Sun just pales in comparison.