View Full Version : Who currently uses Linux?

25th October 2007, 14:42
I know I asked it before, but I thought I would ask again as the OS is still as popular as ever.

Are you currently using Linux? And if so what distro and version are you using? What do you think of it compared to the other OSs you have used in the past? And what are you currently using it for?

I've been using Fedora for a few years now and still think it's a great Distro, and I've also used SUSE quite a lot and think that is one of the nicest Distros to use for ease of setup. But as Ubuntu has become very popular lately and is the only distro many seem to be talking about at the moment I thought I would finally give that a go now.

So I'm currently setting up one of my spare PCs ready to install it. The server edition looks good too, being able to install and have a complete LAMP server up and running in 15 minutes sounds impressive and something I could find very useful for testing.

I am going to install the desktop version onto the PC to have a play around, and might then setup the server edition in a virtual machine on my main PC to use an an extra test server.

25th October 2007, 14:53
I am not using now, but i used for 2 years the Mandrake 10. It was a good Linux, but i used it as user, not to develop, it was only for office tasks, web, mp3.
Today i only have XP, but i am not using it to develop or to do complicated works, so one of this days i will try Ubuntu,i read nice things about it.

25th October 2007, 16:03
I never tried Mandrake. It it still be developed. These days you mostly only hear about Fedora (and Red Hat), SUSE, Ubuntu and Debian.

Did you know about virtual machines and live discs? You can try Ubuntu on CD as the install disk is also a Live CD, so it will run completely from CD. It is also possible to install Linux on a virtual machine and run it that way. A free virtual machine called Innotek Virtualbox supports Linux installations so you can install and run Linux without needing to setup a real HD or system for it. I've tried Virtualbox with Windows 98 and it works perfectly, so I'm next going to try it with Ubuntu.

25th October 2007, 16:07
I will try ubuntu to one of this days, i will install on top of windows to have a 2 boot option, just like mandrake did.

25th October 2007, 16:31
You will need to repartition your HD for that though, which is a bit more hassle. That is why I'm trying it out in a virtual machine so I can install it, test it and then just delete the virtual HD image if I decide not to keep it.

25th October 2007, 16:38
Well i try the virtual machine before (VMplayer) but the speed is not the same....

When i installed Mandrake some time ago, he creates a new partition for Linux and did something like "pull the win partitions to other side of HD" and rearange them all, but it was very fast to do it. And both mandrake and XP did work fine! I am sure ubuntu will do the same. .... later if i see that ubuntu do everything i need, i remove windows... i only have XP because there is allways 1 application i cant find in linux.... but if i get all in linux (dont need to much these days) i will keep linux only...

25th October 2007, 16:44
There is also the ability to run a lot of Windows software using WINE and other Linux applications, which also helps remove the need for Windows.

But, I couldn't stop using Windows as it has so much software I need, such as Photoshop and video editing apps, but also as important are the emulators such as MAME and WinUAE, which are not as developed under Linux.

Demon Cleaner
25th October 2007, 18:24
Otherwise get a copy of Partition Magic which does the partitioning job quite good, without losing content or having to reformat the whole.

25th October 2007, 19:11
I don't trust partition magic myself. Not since I used a copy a few years ago and it completely messed the HD up. It also seemed extremely slow and sat for a long time appearing to do nothing.

The Linux partition tools are much better as they run without first needing to boot into the OS on the HD, so the whole of the HD is free for it to control and move data around. And as Tiago said, the Linux partition tools are normally very fast.

In fact, compared to Windows everything in Linux is fast! I installed Ubuntu onto a spare PC earlier this evening and from switching the system on I had it all installed and setup, with internet access, all hardware working, and no conflicts in under 20 minutes! Tell me that's possible to do with Windows!

And Microsoft really do need to be shown the latest versions of Linux and how an OS really should behave. I tried to enable the enhanced visual effects in the Ubuntu desktop, but as it was only using the default nVidia drivers from the install CD it didn't have the ability to enable the features... so what did it do? It automatically asked me if it was OK to download the proper driver, I clicked OK, it downloaded it without further issues, installed it and the features were activated. Why can't Windows be that straight forward?

Stephen Coates
25th October 2007, 19:53
I have used Debian/Sarge for PPC, and it was OK, but being an OldWorld Mac it was a bit difficult to get going. In fact, I didn't get it working properly at all, partly due to graphics problems, but out of all the distrobutions I tried, Debian is the ones which worked best.

I have a spare partition on my PC's HD so I will see about installing the newer version of Debian, which I forget the name of.

For live CDs, I quite like DSL.

25th October 2007, 21:26
You definitely should try the newest version of Ubuntu on your PC Steve. The download is a single CD ISO and that contains both the live CD and the full HD installer. And to install to the HD it boots into the live version with an installer icon on the disktop, so the install process is actually running from within itself. Quite a cool idea and it works much faster at installing than any other Linux distro I've tried so far. I can see why everyone like it so much.

It is quite a light setup with just the core set of popular applications and utilities, but everything is there for the standard desktop setup, including open office and GIMP. An average home user probably wouldn't need to add any other programs.

25th October 2007, 22:14
Yeah, the newest version of Ubuntu (7.10) is very nice. No problems with driver support on my 3 year old PC. Synaptic is almost Playstation Store-like in being able to download and install software packages.

Stephen Coates
26th October 2007, 09:03
I'd rather just stick with Debian for now.

I just have to problem of haveing only one partiton, and Linux, Amithlon and Windows 3.1 are all competing to be installed on it, so I'm not sure which one to use.

26th October 2007, 14:18
Just try Ubuntu from the CD. It loads as a Live CD so you don't need to install it or even use the PC HD. It's the best way to quickly have a play around with the OS and see if you like it.

26th October 2007, 14:39
Well as you know, I installed Ubuntu on my PS3 and have played around with it a little, but nothing more than that. It was only something I wanted to try, and not for actually using for anything.

26th October 2007, 15:05
What did you think of Ubuntu as an OS?

14th December 2007, 14:02
I installed yesterday the Ubunto 7.10 from CD.

i only manage to do it at 2nd try. In the 1st time i installed it and when he was finnishing, he try to access internet (update/verify something...) he give an error saying he could not access certain server (my wireless router has password), but i could do it later, and say reboot the system, but i wasn't able to do anything, he blocked the screen, ctrl-alt-del didnt work, i had to make a turn-off-on. He was not able to boot or do anything....
so, i have to connect the laptop directly to cable to avoid password from router and install Ubumtu again, then he worked fine!

Know i want to now, where can i get good software, any site?
What do you use as firewall and anti-virus?

14th December 2007, 14:45
A firewall is already installed as part of Ubuntu so you don't have to worry about that, and no known Virus infections exist for Linux, so currently you don't have anything to worry about. Can you see why people like Linux instead of Windows? ;)

But if you did want a more advanced security setup them you could install clamAV & firestarter. Firestarter is a more advanced firewall than the built in Ubuntu one, but only install this if you really are worried about attacks. And clamAV is useful if you are going to link Linux to any WIndows systems as it will detect any infected Windows files, so while no virus exist for Linux and Ubuntu, if you download and Windows files using Linux you might want it installed to check them for viruses before you copy the files to Windows.

It is strange that you had such problems installing the OS. I installed it without it connected to the internet and it installed fine. It only asked for a network connection when I tried to enable something that required proper graphics card drivers and it needed to download them before it could enable the feature.

As for downloading additional software. The first place to look is on the Ubuntu site itself as they have a section dedicated to partner software companies who directly support the OS. And also have a look in the Ubuntu forums. They have many language sections include a Portuguese area which I think you will find useful.

14th December 2007, 15:01
Also as you are just starting out with Ubuntu I highly recommend you visit http://ubuntuguide.org/

It has a great guide to the basics, as well as adding and configuring everything.

14th December 2007, 15:35
well i do not need any special security so i will not put anything, if it has allready a firewall that's fine for me.

I will try to install the VMPLayer for Linux and use the image of XP i did last year....

I think i can used.... it was made on XP but i think VMPlayer in Linux will read it...

I am not playing a lot on PC, but for Linux do we need to do anything special to run games? Do linux have anything like opengl or Direct X that needs to be installed?

OD you know any good games for Linux?

14th December 2007, 16:02
Linux isn't really for gaming as most people use it for business, server or stability reasons. Direct X doesn't exist in Linux because it is a Microsoft and Windows technology, but OpenGL does, and this gets installed with supporting graphics card drivers in Linux.

Some PC games do have a Linux installer included with them, or available for download. The original Half Life and Quake for example. There are also lots of smaller games developed for Linux. Have a look at http://www.linuxgames.com/ for more information.

Also don't forget that there are also a lot of emulators available for Linux too, include the Linux version of UAE.

14th December 2007, 16:08
yes, UAE it wil be my priority.
But i would like to test so linux FPS, just to see how they manage.
Some years ago, it was quite difficult to put anything acceptable with good frame rate and good graphics in Mandrake.... i hope thing got better.
Yes sure Linux is for work, not for games.

14th December 2007, 16:10
You can also install WINE, which then allows many PC games to run under Linux. Normally if a game supports OpenGL then it can be made to run using WINE.

BTW, two recent games that directly support Linux and have Linux installers are Doom 3 and Quake 4.

14th December 2007, 17:06
Interesting thread. I like how more and more people are considering Linux. The spoken word is a powerful force and as easier front end distros become available Linux's free status is bound to grab more of the market.

Coming from Workbench, I've never been afraid of scripts and command prompts, but I just haven't had the will to learn a new operating system - yet.

XP will probably be my last Microsoft product, which I'll continue to use for older games and emulation. Vista really has no appeal to me whatsoever and Linux seems like the route I'll take.

Yes it'll be a steep learning curve, but it's good to be constantly learning new things and I think I'll enjoy the challenge, even though it'll be frustrating at times. It means taking control of my PC back form Microsoft and into my own hands, like it used to be.

As others have mentioned above, I'll start with dual boot, then slowly make the transition. Consoles cover my gaming needs now and Linux, with firefox, open office etc, really has the rest covered.

Here's to change!

14th December 2007, 17:35
You can also try our most using a live CD, which you boot directly from. So you can give different Linux distros a try before you commit to installing one for real. I recommend Ubuntu for pure easy of install and use. It basically installs and works with little intervention from the user. Or if you want more features and great scope for expansion then go for Fedora, which I've also been using for a couple of years now. But Fedora is quite complex to begin with so I recommend Ubuntu to get started.

You can also get many PC applications and utilities to run in Linux including Microsoft Office using programs like Wine.

17th December 2007, 22:03
I use Knopixx as my rescue cd for use on non booting pcs etc, to check the drives. And also to copy files to usb discs in the event of windows not loading.

This last month I have tried

Mandriva 2008
Suse 10
Fedora Core 8

I liked most of them, Suse gave me the most problems getting my wireless to work next to FC8 (Wep64) and M2008 was my easiest setup.

However non of them allowed me to access my windows server shares with ease and after 2-3 hours of trying to work it out, I gave up and went back to windows!

17th December 2007, 22:25
To use Linux on a Windows network you need to run Samba. You can then create shares to all of your networked PC drives.

17th December 2007, 22:33
Hmm, Im happy with XP for now, so eventually when it goes kaput, I will prob make the switch to Linux too. Vista is just terrible

17th December 2007, 22:46
Vista is OK, but it is bloatware at it's worst. But the same was true of XP when it forst came out. Most PCs were underpowered to run it well and it used up too many system resources. The same is currently true of Vista, but in a year or two systems will have progressed enough to make a difference.

I do however think that a lot of tasks have been made more complicated or hidden in Vista compared to XP.

17th December 2007, 22:51
Vista is OK, but it is bloatware at it's worst. But the same was true of XP when it forst came out. Most PCs were underpowered to run it well and it used up too many system resources. The same is currently true of Vista, but in a year or two systems will have progressed enough to make a difference.

I do however think that a lot of tasks have been made more complicated or hidden in Vista compared to XP.

Ive made my XP system look like Vista, minus all the crap.

I have the theme, the sidebar and drive indicators installed.

18th December 2007, 00:27
I installed a Vista like sidebar in XP a while ago, but quickly got bored of it and concluded that it didn't really give me anything I needed and instead just used up some of the screen.

If I want a calendar there is one built into Outlook. If I want a clock there is one in the corner of the taskbar. If I want a calculator i can hit the calculator key on my keyboard and use the standard Windows one. Notes? Outlook again. The sidebar is pointless in my view.

And don't get me started on the transparent windows in Vista. Pretty much everything added into Vista is polish and effects, and nothing much is actually a new feature. About the only thing I do like is the new directory navigation and searching which works in a similar way to directory opus.

Stephen Coates
18th December 2007, 09:28
The things which you just mentioned harrison, are one of the reasons I'm not even that bothered about trying Vista.

I have a Calendar on my wall, and on my PowerBook (I quite like Claris Organiser). I have a calculator on my desk. I have the notpad application which is easily launched from typing notepad and the calculator from typing calc.

And I'm guessing this sidebar wouldn;t even be visible when you are using a programme full screen?

18th December 2007, 10:55
The sidebar is part of the desktop, so you are correct. Open an application full screen and it is hidden.

I suppose a business user might find it useful, especially on a laptop when they are on the move, but then limited screen size starts to come into play (unless you spent a couple of K on one with a big screen resolution such as the Rock with its 1920x1600).

But the sidebar is really just Microsoft's answer to Apple's widgets, and those are just as annoying. And neither are anything new really. Who remembers all the little gadget utilities you could use on the Amiga!!! I used to have a few sitting on my Workbench desktop many years ago. So it just goes to show that the big two OS's are still playing catchup.

I also don't think Vista is the ideal OS for a laptop. It's resource hungry so you need a system with at least 2GB of ram to get the most from it, and it is designed for large screen resolutions, so as mentioned, unless you shell out for one with a widescreen high resolution, you will be fighting for screen space.

The prefect OS for a laptop? Linux! It's lightweight and even the latest releases of the popular ones such as Fedora or Ubuntu will run nicely with 512MB of ram. It also doesn't require a huge HD to use. Ubuntu needs about 3GB to install, which might sound a lot, but remember that this does include a lot of applications preinstalled, including the complete Open Office suite.

23rd December 2007, 10:17
HELP !!!!

how can a set up my linksys WRT54GC wireless in Ubuntu... ??? in XP it workd perfectly... but in linux.... doesnt seem to have a program to look up for possible networks...

Stephen Coates
28th February 2008, 15:05
I have finally ordered an extra HD and some Debian install CDs for the latest version (4-Etch).

Disks came today but still waiting for the HD so I can install it on my PC.

28th February 2008, 16:25
What make/size of HD did you order?

HD prices are good at the moment, but haven't really dropped much since last summer which is a bit of a surprise. 500GB HDs are still around the 50-60 price range, which is what i paid for my Seagate 500GB drives last year.

What made you pick Debian over one of the Linux distros such as Fedora or Ubuntu?

And how come you ordered a set of discs instead of just downloading the ISOs? Are the discs proper pressed ones or just CD-R/DVD-R? That is something I've always wanted to know.

28th February 2008, 16:34
BTW, have you all seen Ubuntu running with a couple of the cool additions, XGL and Kiba-Dock, installed? Kind of shows up Vista by quite some margin.

Take a look at it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ) to see a comparison of Vista verses Ubuntu, and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYsxaMyFV2Y&NR=1) showing some more of Ubuntu.

Stephen Coates
28th February 2008, 17:56
I got a 20GB Maxtor HD second hand for about 8. Any bigger than that and there'd be too much space than I'd know what to do with. Linux install shouldn't take any more than a few GB.

The CDs which I ordered were just CDRs. I don't know if pressed ones are avaliable from anywhere. I would normally download the ISOs, but I really couldn't be bothered. At least any small amounts of profit that are made from this will go to people who help develop debian. It's not like I'm buying Windows Vista.

I chose Debian because I have used it before a little bit (PowerPC version) and it seemed quite nice. Didn't really use it enough to compare it to anything though. Is there a perticular reason I should have chosed Fedora or Ubuntu? I know everyone seems to get obsessed with Ubuntu but it is based on Debian and Debian is easier to spell.

28th February 2008, 19:55
Well... Fedora is probably the most developed Linux distro of most, especially as it is the underlying test bed for the commercial Red Hat distro. It is quite heavyweight through and is best for power users. Ubuntu in contrast takes a completely different focus, creating a distro that is one of the most polished and slick versions of Linux to date. It is also the only one I've used that can install from itself and doesn't need any intervention to get all of your system's hardware recognised and installed. It is completely plug and play! Debian in contrast is quite hardcore, with little to no friendliness, keeping it for the user to do all the hard work themselves to get everything to work and live in harmony.

The thing is though. Why restrict yourself to just Debian? Linux is free after all. Download and give the Live CD versions of Fedora and Ubuntu a try. Play around with them. It costs nothing more than the time to download a CD ISO, and the price of a single blank CD. And after all. What else have you to do?

Definitely keeping things retro with the 20GB HD. It would be madness for most people to even consider such a small HD. A new 40GB HD is under 17 these days and a 160GB one is only 25. Why would you need that space? Well most people create and use files on their computers, and these take up HD space.

28th February 2008, 20:18
Fedora is a test-bed of sorts for Red Hat. That's not to say the release versions of Fedora are Beta versions, just that Fedora will be supported for 6 months or so and then moved on a version while a version of Red Hat would get support for 5-7 years. It's very pro-open source and 'freedom'.

Ubuntu is based upon Debian but is made as user friendly as possible. It's also pro-open source, but should there only be a binary-only driver available for a bit of hardware for example, it'll accept that and make it as easy as possible to install it.

Debian provides a more hands on approach which can be quite daunting at first, and again is uber-pro open-source (down to the point of removing the copyrighted branding out of the Mozilla Firefox browser).

Visually of course, all Linux distros look pretty similar, because they all use either the GNOME or KDE desktop environments.

Stephen Coates
28th February 2008, 20:58
And 'user-friendly' has been important for me since......?

Harrison: I was unaware that is was still possible to get brand new 40GB HDs. As for files, I have a spare 30GB on my 120GB (It has taken me six years just to fill it to 90GB). As soon as I need more space than that I will glady purchase a brand new, bigger HD :). Any work which I do produce will not remain on the OS HD/partition unless I am actively working on it. Storing it on a seperate disk, have many advantages as I'm sure all you people will know. Especially since Linux is more likely something which I will delete/reinstall/format. My work is stored on disks specifically for work, and the OSes can have their own spaces :)

I havn't restricted myself to just Debian. I have tried other Linuxes on the PPC systems as well as a couple of smaller ones which install from Windows/DOS. And my Damn Small Linux CD still works fine.

BTW, After using Debian on a old world macintosh (which are harder to get working with Linux than PCs and new world macs), Debian was the only one which i could successfully get to work. I couldn't get SuSE or YellowDog to even install properly (I'm not saying they arn't good - reason for them not working properly I'm sure was entirely down to the Macintosh not really being suited to linux. I would also be tempted to try SuSE on the PC some time.)

And I do still have some Red Hat 9 CDs from a few years ago.

28th February 2008, 22:08
And 'user-friendly' has been important for me since......?

Very true! You do like to try and make life as hard as possible whenever you see the opportunity. ;) :lol:

BTW, After using Debian on a old world macintosh (which are harder to get working with Linux than PCs and new world macs), Debian was the only one which i could successfully get to work. I couldn't get SuSE or YellowDog to even install properly (I'm not saying they arn't good - reason for them not working properly I'm sure was entirely down to the Macintosh not really being suited to linux. I would also be tempted to try SuSE on the PC some time.)What you describe is exactly the issues most people encountered a couple of years ago trying to get most Linux distros to install, regardless of the underlying hardware or the distribution itself.

But this has now started to quickly change which is really the reason why I questioned your choice of Debian. It is a hardcore DIY OS where you have to get your hands dirty to get everything to run smoothly. Other distro developers use it as a basis to start building their own versions, so in this respect Debian is great, but it is not great to use as an OS in itself as you have to do a lot of work to get it how most people need it. In contrast others like SUSE and Ubuntu have done this hard work for you and created very polished distros compared to Debian and both install on nearly every PC I've ever tried without the need for much intervention at all from the user except to enter an admin name and password at the end of the install.

Why do a lot of work that has already been completed by someone else? It's an exercise in futility. It would be like me trying to code my own version of Joomla. Pointless.

28th February 2008, 22:23
Why do a lot of work that has already been completed by someone else? It's am exercise in futility.

I used that excuse at school regarding homework... The teacher didn't buy it!

28th February 2008, 22:29
Well, there is a difference between learning and using! ;)

Stephen Coates
29th February 2008, 08:02
Well, there is a difference between learning and using! ;)


Stephen Coates
2nd March 2008, 10:56
I finally got Debian installed. I don't understand this thing about it being difficult. It was dead easy. The only thing I really had to do was partition the disk and tell it where to install GRUB (which didn't work at first - I don't think I installed it properly, but it is fine now).

I installed the KDE version but would like to put GNOME on it as well so I will do that later.

I'm posting this from Konqueror.

2nd March 2008, 13:45
Cool. Although you'll probably be liking Konqueror because it's different, personally I'd go with Iceweasel (which is Firefox).

Probably your next step will be to get codecs for MP3 and AVI playback sorted. Again, for MP3 at least, you'll have to look outside the standard Debian packages, but for AVI playback, the easiest solution is to use VLC player, which has pretty much all the standard video codecs (DivX, XviD, X264, MPEG etc.) built in.

I'm not sure if E-UAE is available as a package within Debian as standard, but if you wasn't and you wanted to give it a go, there's my quick guide (http://forum.classicamiga.com/showthread.php?p=20754#post20754) to doing it with Ubuntu which would probably work with Debian as well.

Stephen Coates
2nd March 2008, 13:53
I actually went and downloaded Opera soon after, so I didn't even bother with Iceweasel.

Not sure why I need to play MP3s or videos on Debian though :huh:.

I would be interested in trying E-UAE and comparing it to WinUAE.

2nd March 2008, 14:50
Not sure why I need to play MP3s or videos on Debian though :huh:.

You don't need to, it's just something some people like to do ;)

Stephen Coates
10th May 2008, 14:38
Why do people keep saying Debian is difficult?

Seems to be working fine here so far with hardly any issues.

10th May 2008, 18:08
I Use Ubuntu release 7 for PPC on an Ibook G4 1.2GHz and It's very smooth compared to OSX, easy to use and full of features, I likey very much:)

10th May 2008, 18:16
Why do people keep saying Debian is difficult?

Seems to be working fine here so far with hardly any issues.

I didn't say it was difficult, just that it was more difficult than Ubuntu. Subtle but important difference.

It also depends on what you want to do. As someone who doesn't play MP3s or videos much, you wouldn't notice the difference between trying to do it in Ubuntu and Debian.

Stephen Coates
11th May 2008, 19:32
I wasn't on about you saying it was difficult, but generally, people keep telling me it is more difficult than the others, including one of my teachers, who happens to keep mentioning a 'kedora'. He even mentioned it when KDE 3 was loading up on the SuSE system in college.

Also everyone seems to recomend Ubuntu over everything else for some reason.I'm not saying Ubuntu is bad (i'm sure it is very good), but I can't see why it is any better than Debian.

Anyway, I have Debain set up nicely here and I'm enjoying using it.

12th May 2008, 13:05
Unless you actually gave Ubuntu a try there is no way you will ever know why so many people like it so much over most other distros. I was a firm Fedora fan for a few years until I installed Ubuntu. Now instead Ubuntu is my favourite, but with SUSE and Fedora still being better options in my view if a more complex setup is required.

Stephen Coates
28th September 2008, 21:33
I've used Deabian quite a bit this week and not had any problems with it. I have mostly used it for C related stuff which I have been typing into Nano and compiling with GCC. After doing a bit of reading on the internet I am quite tempted to use Linux for my college project as it seems it is easier to access the parallel port on Linux than it is on Windows NT.

I have also had a quick look into CAD programmes on Linux. Only things I really need to do is try and get access to all my disk drives and my laser and inkjet printers, none of which should be too difficult.

29th September 2008, 10:41
Well, I have finally set up Ubuntu, my very first dabble in Linux, and I must say it took very little effort to get to grips with the interface, operating system layout, filesystem and power of the command line to get privileged tasks done.

I guess coming from an Amiga Workbench background and being used to writing scripts and using Shell really made it a painless transition.

I now have my main PC/Workstation running XP still, but beside it and hooked up to the same monitor is a mATX box quad booting -> DOS, Win98SE, Win2K and Ubuntu!!! First the Grub menu brings up Linux or Windows options, the second the standard Win2k/Win98 boot menu and if you select Win98 it then goes to a menu allowing DOS configurations also for DOS games! Madness!

The mATX box has a Athlon64 3200+, Radeon 8500 and sblive (dos sb16 compatible!). I'm using it as a backup internet machine, part time server and for old PC games, plus a few Linux OpenGL ones! With the Radeon 8500 3D acceleration is automatically installed in Ubuntu, but I do have a nvidia 6200A I could replace it with as I've heard nVidia drivers are better. Depends, I really like the Radeon and I think it's actually faster than the 6200A at higher resolutions due to its 128bit memory vs 64bit.

It's great fun. I suggest others who only have one machine get themselves a mATX rig and use some of those old parts you might have lying around as it gives you more options. The Athlon64 3200+ for example cost me 14, the motherboard 10, both brand new, such is the popularity of dual core! The rest of the parts were gathering dust in a cupboard. Plus now I get to use both video connectors on my monitor. Dual core? Nah - dual computer is the way!

29th September 2008, 14:17
I quite agree. Dual computers is a great setup to have. Network them together and you have a great environment as you can set one up to be doing something and then get one with doing something else on the other one.

Is also good to see you managed to get into Ubuntu quickly. It is definitely the smoothest and best setup Distro at the moment IMO, and is very easy to install and get started with. And with your PC spec it is worth exploring some of the advanced features you can install. Some of my favourites are the visual additions, such as being able to move around the virtual desktops on a cube, or move the windows around and they flutter and ripple as you move them. Completely cosmetic and add no functionality to to the OS, but they look great and better than Vista or OSX. ;)

29th September 2008, 15:13
Thanks Harrision I'll look into that. I love all the addons and being able to build up the kind of OS you want. It really feels like taking control back into our hands.

I can see me moving to Linux more and more in the future. Plus that and Win2K make great servers too.

30th March 2009, 05:43
@Harrison: Speaking of Linux, which is the basis for emulation of Uae I think,... have you ever used Uae for a Mac? Is it possible?
Also, I have Ubuntu and I wonder how it can be used on this pc here with Amiga emulation. I have tried Amiga Forever but I couldn't mount the AF because I didn't know how nor do I understand enough computer-eze to do it from emails and forums...I'm a layman computer fan, since I use computers to draw , hence I have little time to study computers...any suggestions?

30th March 2009, 12:34
@Ritty. Yes, you are right in thinking Amiga emulation on Linux is via UAE. If you are using Ubuntu or Fedora then you might be able to find the correct version of UAE for your version of Linux directly from the OS using it's package updates program.

As for the Mac, yes there are distros of Linux for the older PowerPC based Macs. And with the newer Intel Macs you can just use the same versions of Linux as the PC. Because an Intel Mac is basically a standard PC, but costing twice the price for the Apple logo! ;)

Stephen Coates
30th March 2009, 14:42
Has anyone here used MacUAE?

I used it on the powerbook about 6 years ago and it was very slow. But said computer now has a G3 upgrade so i might try it again sometime.

30th March 2009, 16:47
I don't think MacUAE is being developed any more. Would still be interesting to find out how well you can get it to run on a newer Mac though.

30th August 2010, 08:17
I am using Linux as my main operating system (since Windows 95, I have never actually had Windows installed on my own computer, save to try XP out it quickly got deleted.)

At the moment I use gentoo (have used red hat and slackware in the past) but I might try arch in the next few months...

Stephen Coates
26th April 2011, 16:56
Linux can be strange.

I've been getting on quite well with Vector Linux over the last year or so. Had a few issues but they have been quite easy to sort out.

Now, oddly, after doing a software update, my X doesn't work.

X is a pain to get working properly.

Anyway, I fancy a bit of a change so am thinking about reinstalling. Not sure whether to stick with Vector or whether to change to something else. I wouldn't mind changing Windows Managers (I currently use XFCE) but I don't really want to use GNOME or KDE.

Also, I tend to find Linux runs a bit slower than Windows.

26th April 2011, 21:59
I've had mixed feeling about Linux over the years. I love the way you can tinker with every part of the OS and pick and choose between different Desktops, File Managers and everything else you can think of... but I've also encountered some very annoying issues that have not been easy to fix, especially on laptops. And it can be annoying with network cards sometimes needing to use a fudged workaround that actually uses the Windows drivers. And even the very mature Ubuntu still has its issues.

Personally I will stick to Windows for my main desktop OS, but Linux for my server OS. And for those I currently used Cent OS (based on the open source files from Redhat Enterprise) and Fedora. Have you tried Cent OS yet?

Stephen Coates
27th April 2011, 23:26
I've not used CentOS, but I will have a look later.

I downloaded the LXDE based Debian Live CD yesterday, and I am currently running that. LXDE seems nice. Only issue with this live CD is that the ISO image was too big to fit on a CD, so I had to remove some stuff from it.

I'm pondering dual booting Vector Linux and Debian.

28th April 2011, 15:54
I keep Xubuntu on my dad's systems and he likes them just fine. As for me? I have a Mac and am pretty happy with it.

Stephen Coates
29th April 2011, 21:24
I found a nice looking distribution called Absolute Linux. It is based on Slackware and used the IceWM Windows manager.

I'm going to give this a try.

I re arranged the partitioning on my HDD so I can have a big /home area shared between many systems and can then make several logical partitions for Linux systems and primary partitions for Windows/DOS.

GParted does a good job of partitioning. Only downside is that it took nearly 3 hours to move a 300GB partition to the left.

30th April 2011, 08:13
I have just installed Ubuntu 11.04 on a Windows 7 Ultimate with Ubuntu going all the resizing and partitioning with no real issues other than with Grub2. However the solution to the Grub2 in my mind proved why Linux will always be a minority OS. The inherent need for all Linux to open a terminal when you need to do something serious will always scare off the less technically minded (it scares me and I'm used to DOS!).

Stephen Coates
30th April 2011, 21:02
I think last time I used GRUB I had trouble getting it to work.

I have been using LILO for the last year or so and that seems to be nice and easy to set up.

Stephen Coates
2nd May 2011, 00:58
I installed Debian 6 this morning. It is working nicely :). I decided to stick with GNOME instead of LXDE, mainly due to how well it does things like desktop icons.

It has the older version of GNOME, rather than the new GNOME 3 which has a new GUI.

It uses GDM 3 for the graphical login. Unfortunately, this doesn't allow logging in as root and there seems to be no option to enable this, like in GDM 2. It also lacks the many configuration things that GDM 2 had. This was easily fixed by using Synaptic to completely remove GDM 3 and install GDM 2 instead.

It doesn't come with much useful software 'out of the box' like Vector Linux does but it has huge repositories. I like its cool 'SpaceFun' theme.

You will probably be amazed to hear this, but I have decided to give Ubuntu a try. I'm downloading the 11.04 LiveCD now.