So Im a Bit Interested in Linux, I have some questions...

What are the advantages of Linux?

What version of Linux would you recommend for a Linux Newb?

Can you game on Linux and will games perform better?

Can I have both Win XP Home and Linux on my same notebook?

Thanks!

 

Well, somewhat tough questions.

1)Linux is built on a different architecture, based on UNIX; we say that Linux is a UNIX-like OS, like Solaris, BSD and OS X. UNIX were thought out with networking and multiuser support from the start. So the very way the OS functions is quite different from Windows.

I would say that Linux is more secure than Windows (as in inherently more secure). Some people might disagree and say that is due to the lower market share, and that may be the case, but pragmatically Linux is more secure today. You have no need of antivirus for Linux (there are perhaps a dozen know virus and none of them work with modern distros AFAIK).

The most single aspect of Linux, IMNSHO, is that it is OpenSource (and moreover, GPLed). This effectively means that no single body, person or corporation can effectively control Linux's development - simply because anyone can change it, as long as this changes are also available for anyone to see and change as well - ad infinitum. In pratical terms, this means there is no "standard Linux". There is a plethora of distributions because anyone, even a single person, can do it. The downside is the lack of standartization that permeates almost everything that is Linux-related. Linux is all about freedom of choice, not necessarily user-friendliness. You can choose from different distros, different kernels, different GUIs, and so on. It may be a bit overwhelming for a beginner. The main advantage is no vendor lock-in - ever. Oh, and it can be had for free usually, legally.
That said, let's concentrate on more practical aspects.

2) I would recommend Ubuntu, Knoppix and Mandrake, in that order. Ubuntu and Knoppix are available as LiveCD - you can run the whole OS from the CD without installing anything at all, just boot from the CD. This let you try it wthout messing with your HD. Ubuntu is the big hit nowadays, it tries to keep everyhthing as simple as possible and it is considered well rounded.

3) You can game on Linux, but there are fewer Linux games - as in very few. You can use emulation/translation soft like Cedega that allows you to use Window's games, with various degrees of compatibilty. With well supported games (and graphics drivers, and boards) Linux performance is on pair with Windows, sometimes a few percent better.

4) Yes. You will need to repartition your HD though. While it is usually safe, you might end up not being able to boot into Windows - which 99,99% of the time is easily fixable. Do have a backup and make sure you know how to do it, or have someone else install it for you.

Throughout this post I referred to Linux meaning the OS; in fact Linux is really just the kernel (an in case Richard Stallman reads this, I know, it is really GNU/Linux; I just don't mind when people call me by a nickname).

 

Agree wholeheartedly with the Ubuntu recommendation. Suse (pronounced "soo-sah" in case you were wondering) is also a very notebook friendly distribution. If you want to game, I would definitely encourage you to set up a dual boot system and just boot into WinXP when you want to play. That's really the only way you'll be able to avoid limiting yourself to what games you can and can't play. Cedega, although convenient and it's range of support is becoming more broad, is still going to limit you to it's list of supported games (some of which have a lesser degree of "playability" than others). It should also be noted that with all the mention of free software that Cedega is not free and requires a subscription fee.

 

Mandrake Linux is now called "Mandriva" Linux. Also, it does have a LiveCD available.

Also, I personally would recommend Kubuntu, which is Ubuntu with a different desktop, but they're all good.

 

I'd also recommend Fedora, they've done an excellent job of trimming the bloat the last couple releases which makes it a rather lightweight full featured Gnome distro. Mepis is another good one.

And Cedega is too free, you just have to build from CVS. There are some games which have been ported, as well, like Doom 3, Quake 4, UT, NWN, and all the Quake engines have been open sourced and the original games released. There are some pretty decent open source games too.

 

Only problem with Fedora is it's a pain to get media working, from my experience. Ubuntu/Kubuntu, you can hack it in quite easily

The MOST important thing to realize: Linux is a different way of thinking about your computer. It's not Windows, it will never be Windows. If you approach it as thinking it should work like Windows, it won't ever be fun for you. Take some time, if you have a problem, search Google, and just read. Be prepared for a ton of reading if you want to do anything past just running a basic Linux distro (compiling programs, etc.)

 

Alright thanks guys, im gonna go make the live CD for ubuntu then!

 

Let me know how it goes. I've tried installing Ubuntu on my computer and it didn't work for me. Ofcourse, i never really took the time to understand why it didn't work.

This leads me to the point of this response. You need to have a LOT of patience to get Linux working. When i say working, i mean getting the OS to recognize and let you use various pieces of hardware. You will curse, bang your head against the wall, and want to smash your notebook at times but hopefully it'll be worth the effort.

I recommend that you try various distros to determine which is best for you. I have tried Ubuntu, Kanotix, and now im trying Fedora Core.

Good Luck.

EDIT: You might want to get the GParted CD to do your partitions if Linux screws up in partitoning/formatting. I don't have the link anymore, do a search in this forum to find it.

 

As much as I love Fedora (have used FC3, 4, and now 5 on my desktop), I think I would have to go along with pitabred and agree that it's not a newb distro. Not so much for the lack of multimedia, but more for the fact that they tend to go for "bleeding edge" in some of the stuff they include. More than any other distro I've used I'd have to say that FC is the one most likely to break your install with the next update. In a bizarre, twisted way I think that's why I love it.

Oh, OK. Wasn't aware of that. For some reason I was under the impression that they charge (or used to) a subscription fee. Even so, trying to build from CVS isn't really something I'd recommend for someone just starting out either.

 

Obviously you've never tried Arch
I swear, when they migrate testing I want to go crawl under my bed. They've always broken things with updates, but they've made all their builds so complex where they used to keep developer defaults, things have really been breaking in odd ways lately. To the degree where I want to build a scratch system for the sake of stability.

Actually, I think I'll rescind the suggestion for Fedora, more because their wireless support kind of sucks compared to Ubuntu and Suse at the moment. I would actually probably suggest SLED for a new user if it weren't for the fact that it's difficult to dish out money for an update subscription when you're brand new to Linux. The evaluation might be worth looking into, however.

Transgaming says the anonymous CVS access is for the convenience of developers, and that end users aren't supposed to use it. But you just know they're doing it to keep more advanced users appeased and from crying foul over GPL sidestepping. That said, the subscription fee really is reasonable and well worth the support for a newer user.

 

I'm an Archer. Love the flexibility and the package management system.

It's not for everyone though. You have to have a second computer up with the install guide the first time, because there should be a lot of reading to do. After that though - you'll fly - because its i686 optimised, whereas Ubuntu and SuSE are i386.

If you just want to call yourself a linux user but not much else - get Ubuntu. It's awesome. But if you want to learn a bit about Linux as you use it, then I'd recommend Arch Linux.

 

Meh. Ubuntu has architecture-specific optimized kernels. You can install those afterwards The kernel is really the only place where architecture-specificity really has an effect, unless the program is specifically designed to include SSE calls and such.

 

Zigactly.

I've been hearing the whole "architecture optimisation for everything roxors" deal since Sourceror linux was the distro of choice, but for most applications you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. The only benefit you'll really see is that your apps will spend another piffteenth of a percent of their time waiting for user input.

To Pita's list I'd add the X server, and any media applications (especially encoders)... basically anything that's truly CPU intensive, and likely to benefit from and available SIMD optimisations your particular CPU may offer.

 

The real advantage of distributions like Arch, Slackware, and Gentoo over those like Fedora, Suse, and even Debian is that you install a minimal system with just what you need. These other distros will load a bunch of daemons on init and xinit for all the features that some users want some of the time. It's a lot like the speed issues Windows has been having now for years, I thought this was supposed to be one of the big benefits of Linux? It is, but only if you use the right distribution (Vector and Zenwalk are easier to use lightweight distros)

Benchmarks I've seen comparing more and less optimized code has shown it's very hit or miss, sometimes it's faster, sometimes it's slower, but more often it's negligible. You get much more improvement from running a stripped down beyond or ck kernel with a properly configured scheduler.

My Arch installation boots in 15 seconds from POST, and this is on an old P3 800mhz with a gig of RAM and an aging 7200 RPM hard drive. I've seen similar results from Slackware based distributions, but Debian based and most RPM distributions boot extremely slowly, and that tends to be indicative of the distributions overall performance. I will say that RPM distributions are getting much better, and I hear Ubuntu has improved greatly.

 

Nope, sure haven't. You'll notice in my post I said "more than any other distro I've used", lol. Never been brave (or motivated) enough to tackle Arch, Gentoo, or Slack. Maybe when I retire and have lots of time on my hands. Hardest thing I've ever installed and used was Debian (my first distro, both on PPC and x86). Not the most difficult of distros, but it did make me learn enough about Linux to get by. Since then I've used Suse (but didn't like KDE), a few obscure distros like Vector, and finally landed on and stuck with Fedora (forgoing the default GNOME for Fluxbox), although I use Ubuntu on my notebook (easy to configure wireless, etc. Yeah, I'm lazy).

EDIT: BTW, I've found that if you use the net install option on Debian you can manage to get a pretty lean system out of it, though probably not as slim as the three you already mentioned.

 

Well, with FC, SuSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc. you have the option of only installing the core system (basically kernel plus GNU utils) then install your other components by hand. This of course, is probably not something a new user to linux will want to do...

I'm guessing you're using initNG on your system... I simply cannot wait for this to become the default for all distros, it can easily halve your boot time through parallelization.

We are getting a little OT here, we're probably frightening the new guy with our "my distro is better than yours" routine...

 

Just a quick question, if I get a live cd for ubuntu then I don't need to install anything on my computer?

 

taCtiCs: That's the idea. You still have the option of doing so from the LiveCD, but all it'll do is boot off the CD and run linux, but it won't touch the hard drive at all.

And talking about Ubuntu/Fedor/SuSE vs. Arch/Slackware/Gentoo and their daemons: Does your desktop put a device icon on the desktop when you plug in a USB drive, and auto-mount it? Thought not. All the services they install usually do something.

 

Well that's just great. I wanted to try Linux but didn't want to risk messing up the HD. Starting to DL the iso file now. Would anybody like to give me any tips for when I get started? Links to any linux reading I should do (btw I'm getting Ubuntu b/c I hear it's easiest for noobs like me)?

 

Nope. The world is your oyster www.google.com is your friend. The most important thing you need to decide is WHY you want to use Linux. Do you want to get something specific done? Do you not like Windows? Is it cheaper? Just a toy?
What will help the most is if you just figure out something you want to get working or try to accomplish, and then try and do it.

 

Just a toy. I want to learn how to do everyday things with linux.

 

I would suggest any new users of linux to download "**** small linux" first and play with it. It's only 50mb and does not install a bootloader.

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/


Downloading any linux software that changes your partition may f*ck up your pc if you don't have any experience.

 

linux is not based on unix at all
unix is closed source, linux is open source.
linus torvalds when writing the linux kernel intended to make something similar to unix, but one is not derived from the other in any way

 

UNIX is not closed source, UNIX is defined by a set of API standards called (mostly) POSIX. Some variations of UNIX are closed source, like AIX and HP-UX. Others are open, like the BSD variants and more recently Solaris. Linux is based on and compliant with the POSIX standards, but it's not certified UNIX.

Saying that Linux is a UNIX is not correct, but it's not entirely wrong either. It would be more accurate to call it UNIX compatible or UNIX-like, but most people accept lumping it in with true UNIX for ease of conversation.

 

yes it is wrong.
they have NO source code in common

 

So what if they don't have any source code in common? They still adhere to POSIX-type behavior, and they both use the GNU tools as their base. Linux is for all intents and purposes another "flavor" of Unix. That's why Linux is supplanting Unix in the server room.
It's like calling a pickup a car. It's technically NOT a car, but it's pretty close.

 

Let's not forget that there's more to linux (or any *nix) than the kernel. Yes, the linux kernel shares no source code with any other kernel (SCO lawsuits notwithstanding). As Pita has already pointed out, the base tools are from GNU and BSD.

As such, there's a good chance that a small percentage of the code that makes up linux as a complete operating system can draw it's heritage all the way back to AT&T.

The main reason linux isn't unix is due to trademark issues. To have a POSIX compliant OS use the unix name, it has to pass a suite of compatibility tests and pay a very hefty licensing fee.

 

Don't worry syxbit, SCO lost.

The first UNIX releases from Bell Labs were actually open source. So it is possible to share a heritage here. BSD is legal proof of that, it's even certified. Solaris is proof that it's still possible to open your code and still be UNIX. It wasn't just a small window of opportunity that BSD squeezed through.

The BSD and Linux kernels have quite a bit of code in common. But that's ok, BSD's license permits it. Other closed UNIX kernels probably have code in common with Linux too, since BSD permits the closing of their code when merged with other projects. What Linux doesn't have is code protected by these projects' copyright, but that doesn't mean all code from copyright protected projects.