Before using Linux, I was a massive Windows fanboy. I thought it was the best, always was the best, and could never be defeated. I used to laugh about Linux when I was small, but I had never used it, and didn't want to. A few years later, when I was about 14, I saw the sub-forum for Linux on Facepunch. I had forgotten about it, but this made me think to have a look. I checked it out, and saw everyone ranting and raving about it. I had always wanted to be a programmer, and started to read things about hacking (not network hacking), and all sorts of programming stuff. I had read that programming was best done with Linux. And so, I tried it out. First with Ubuntu, then with Kubuntu (which I disliked), then with Debian and finally Arch. I absolutely loved it, and at this point in time, I know more about computers, file systems, kernels, files, programming, compiling, linking and package managers than I ever would have without Linux, and I thank it for that <3.
I often used Facepunch as a place for asking questions, and I have had a few problems and had always asked them in the "Post your Linux desktop" thread. I come here, with a question, and realised that instead of making a new thread for one question, or clogging up the "Post your Linux desktop" thread with small questions, I thought I would make a small thread to accommodate these kind of questions, and here it is.
Keep in mind that you can just talk about new things you have done, or anything else related to Linux that doesn't need a new thread, or doesn't fit in any other ones.
So my question, to kick things off: Is it really very difficult to manage packages and updates in Gentoo? I would love to try it, but I've been told you have to manually look for every single package and every single dependancy, and then every single dependancy for that dependancy etc. Is this true?
Linux is definatly a learning experience. I've learnt so much in the small time I've used linux.
Instead of making my own thread I'll just ask here.
I was thinking of installing Linux on my laptop(not the MacBook). But you guys in the Linux section make it sound like there is more to it than youst instaling it. You probably know what I mean! So is there anything I should know?
[QUOTE=leontodd;22982015]Linux is definatly a learning experience. I've learnt so much in the small time I've used linux.[/QUOTE]
I really agree with you, I've only used Linux (Ubuntu) for a really short while, and have already learned a lot.
[QUOTE=Nexus651;22982102]Insted of makeing my own thread I'l youst ask here.
I was thinking of instaling Linux on my laptop(Not the MacBook). But you guys in the Linux section make it sound like there is more to it than youst instaling it. You probably know what I mean! So is there anything I should know?[/QUOTE]
It depends entirely on the distribution you want to install.
Linux is not simply one Operating System. There are many many builds, made by different teams of people. These builds are all called distributions. You need to choose one of them to install. The most popular for newcomers are [url=http://www.linuxmint.com/]Linux Mint[/url] and [url=http://www.ubuntu.com/]Ubuntu Linux.[/url]
If you already knew that then sorry haha. Both of those distributions have a very easy to follow installation, and come with programs that most users would need, e.g. Firefox.
[QUOTE=Nexus651;22982102]Insted of makeing my own thread I'l youst ask here.
I was thinking of instaling Linux on my laptop(Not the MacBook). But you guys in the Linux section make it sound like there is more to it than youst instaling it. You probably know what I mean! So is there anything I should know?[/QUOTE]
The thing with Linux is that Linux isn't an operating system like Windows. There are multiple versions, so to speak. If you've used Windows before, I suggest Ubuntu, as that is the most user-friendly to newcomers.
I also suggest to just read up a bit on Linux by using Google, etc.
I'm sure someone here can provide valuable links.
Ninja'd, rated myself late.
Thanks for the help :) [nos217, Hufterkruk]
I'll do some more research and then decide if I should start using Ubunto or any other distuburtion
Edit:
Decided on Ubunto downloading as we speak /~30 minutes/
Sure thing, and welcome to Linux ;). By the way, ignore elitist dicks, fanboys who tell you you are only using Linux to look cool/be different etc. Also, try not to be a fanboy yourself, e.g. don't say to Windows users that they suck etc, it makes the Linux community look bad. But I'm sure you won't do that :). Again, welcome!
Does anybody have any server ideas? I have an old mini PC running linux and I need something to do with it. Something useful and different and not a plain old Apache server. I was thinking Firewall PC or something along those lines.
I know absolutely nothing about setting up a server haha, sorry.
Does anyone know if Emerge can resolve dependencies well?
[QUOTE=nos217;22985517]
Does anyone know if Emerge can resolve dependencies well?[/QUOTE]
Yes. It does it automatically.
So why does everyone act as if managing Gentoo is the hardest thing ever?
[QUOTE=nos217;22987854]So why does everyone act as if managing Gentoo is the hardest thing ever?[/QUOTE]
Probably because compiling can be time consuming, it's easy though. And there is still a lot of manual configuration.
And the use flags on the packages can be kind of troublesome. Like enabling x264 in mplayer. I've run into problems like "X" doesn't work, and then discover I need to add a use flag for feature X.
If I install arch, will it do a grub for me so that I can dual boot 7 and arch.
[QUOTE=Takkun10;22988937]If I install arch, will it do a grub for me so that I can dual boot 7 and arch.[/QUOTE]
IIRC the Arch setup gives you options for your bootloader, but I think you need to configure it yourself.
[QUOTE=nos217;22981948]So my question, to kick things off: Is it really very difficult to manage packages and updates in Gentoo? I would love to try it, but I've been told you have to manually look for every single package and every single dependancy, and then every single dependancy for that dependancy etc. Is this true?[/QUOTE]
Emerge is probably the best as far as resolving dependencies goes. So no, it's not true.
[QUOTE=Mattz333;22989171]IIRC the Arch setup gives you options for your bootloader, but I think you need to configure it yourself.[/QUOTE]
It's more like you select where to install it and change the list (/boot/grub/menu.lst or lilo's list thing)
It's going to handle all of the rest. I'll point to the right partition for /boot and all.
IIRC for LILO you need to install it manually or something.
[editline]10:28PM[/editline]
I have 1 question regarding Arch. Lately I've been upgrading certain packages but not all of them (boost, gcc, etc.) I was installing something through AUR and it bitched on me.
Anyways, I realized soon enough that it was a fairly bad idea. I went and started a system upgrade. At one point, while resolving dependencies, it found a conflict between kernel26-firmware and linux-firmware. Now I was wondering if it was a good idea to upgrade such important packages. I would assume it will ask me to update the kernel itself as well.
Is that a safe procedure?
One more question.
While looking at the wiki I saw that you could tell pacman not to fuck with certain files (they gave grub's menu.lst as an example).
Should I prevent certain configs from tempered with?
Another question came to my mind. If I do upgrade my kernel, will I have to change the entry in menu.lst? [b]I think I found an answer, see below.[/b]
[editline]10:46PM[/editline]
Now, I've done a bit of research and answered a question. Hurray me!
I think I won't have to change menu.lst, I'm upgrading from 2.6.33-1 to 2.6.34-2 and pacman should replace the vmlinux26 and kernel26.img files.
I was thinking of installing ubuntu on my laptop sometime soon.
Will an Intel GMA 4500M cause any problems? Live USB's showed no trouble.
And how should I partition my stuff?
Currently I've got a Recovery partition which i'd rather keep, C: with win7 which i want to replace, and a data partition.
Would 1 big partition be the best to use?
Or should I keep the data one as it is?
[QUOTE=bassie12;22999933]I was thinking of installing ubuntu on my laptop sometime soon.
Will an Intel GMA 4500M cause any problems? Live USB's showed no trouble.
And how should I partition my stuff?
Currently I've got a Recovery partition which i'd rather keep, C: with win7 which i want to replace, and a data partition.
Would 1 big partition be the best to use?
Or should I keep the data one as it is?[/QUOTE]
You can remove the Windows 7 partition when installing Ubuntu. You can then make an EXT partition and a swap partition.
You can keep the data partition.
This way you'll have
- the recovery partition
- the data partition
- the Linux partition (with ext)
- a swap partition (Linux needs this)
[QUOTE=bassie12;22999933]I was thinking of installing ubuntu on my laptop sometime soon.
[b]do it[/b]
Will an Intel GMA 4500M cause any problems? Live USB's showed no trouble.
[b]no[/b]
And how should I partition my stuff?
[b]I do 20 GB for /, 100 MB for /boot, and the rest for /home[b]
Currently I've got a Recovery partition which i'd rather keep, C: with win7 which i want to replace, and a data partition.
[b]that recovery partition is for windows recoveries, make that your / partition if it's decently sized[/b]
Would 1 big partition be the best to use?
easiest, but not necessarily best.
Or should I keep the data one as it is?
[b]what?[/b]
[/QUOTE]
Ohh thanks. Thought I would run into some trouble.
I was recently given two Dell Optiplex 320 computers (both missing their hdds) so i decided to install Ubuntu on them. After installing 10.04 (32-bit) i made sure my boot sequence was set correctly (Pata drive first), and tried to boot. Alas, Ubuntu failed to boot and the "No boot device avaliable. Press F1 to try again or F2 for setup" error popped up.
Right now i am running off a live usb and am able to view my Hard Drive and it's partitions if that means anything...
I am fairly new to Ubuntu/Linux and would greatly appreciate the help, thanks.
c/p From UbuntuForums dell section.
cable select bro
Jumper is set as Master, if that's what you're referring to.
For me my trail was:
Slax - Ubuntu - Mint - Ubuntu - Mint - OpenSUSE - Fedora - Xubuntu - Lubuntu - Arch/Archbang/Crunchbang/ dabbling in Gentoo
on my main system (or whatever my main system was at the time)
mandrake - debian - mandriva - fedora - debian - ubuntu - debian - crunchbang - arch - debian - arch - gentoo - debian
at least as far as Linux goes, I've installed Solaris, Windows, OS X, BSD, Haiku, and a few others as well.
and of course messing with other operating systems on VMs and other computers.
Interesting.
Right now with Arch as open as it is I'm testing Openbox, Gnome, KDE, LXDE, etc.... to see which window manager suits me the best. I'm planning on moving to some tiling managers first but I am putting off having to memorize a fuckton of keyboard shortcuts M_M.
my trail: SuSe Linux (didn't like it, waited few years) > Ubuntu (8.10 I think) > Long time back to windows > Ubuntu 8.10 again > Mint 7 > Ubuntu 9.10 > Mint 9
That should be it.
I have tried other OS'es like arch and debian on virtualbox, so I haven't only used the "easy" distro's.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
