Seeking Linux recommendation for BP6

lungster · Post by **lungster** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:27 pm

So here I am with my BP6 scrubbed clean of everything. I'm looking for a version of Linux that will allow me to play around with it, learn some stuff, develop some code, set up a web server, etc. I used to use Unix exclusively over a dozen yrs ago so I figure it'll all come to me sooner or later.

In the past I've tried (on and off half-heartedly) Mandrake 8 and Red Hat 8 (?), neither of which (at the time) really impressed me. So far this month I have downloaded SuSE 9.1 and Mandrake 10 for testing.

I tried to install SuSE 9.1 and was happy that it found my Turtle Beach Malibu ISA sound card. Installation went smoothly until the very end when the video driver died and left me with a black screen to work with. Not knowing what to do and rather unimpressed, I decided to try Mandrake.

Mandrake's installation was nicer and gave me more flexibility and options. However, it couldn't deal with my sound card nor did it find my ethernet adapter. It hinted at running sndconfig for the sound card only to tell me later that it had no idea what it is. As for the network, that was also a dead end.

My system has little in it - Asus 3800 AGP TNT2 video, Intel NIC and Malibu ISA sound. I'm contemplating swaping out these parts if they are "difficult" parts for Linux to deal with. Any suggestions ?

I'm looking for a Linux that will install easily out of the box; has apps and dev environment (so I don't have to hunt for it), etc. I guess completeness is what I'm looking for given my neophyte status.

TIA for any thoughts.
-lou

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 4:05 am

Is your NIC an ISA or PCI card?

Getting PCI cards to work under Linux is always much easier than ISA cards. Your graphics card should be a no brainer interms of finding it and configuring it since Nvidias stuff is well supported.

The soundcard problem doesn't surprise me. It is an ISA card and it may contain a chip called "Vortex" on it. I have seen some companies supply a binary Linux driver for the Vortex chips (which are experimental) but the company making these chips flopped bigtime and didn't release specifications for their chips so that new drivers could be built and maintained (the bastards - for them it was the bottom line and not their customers that mattered).

Bottom line is if you want to have an easy time installing Linux, try going with an all PCI setup. I am not saying that ISA cards don't work but they may be trickier to install (similar to Windows actually). If your NIC is an ISA card then go buy yourself one of those extremely cheapo NICs based on the RTL8139 chips. Those can be found for maybe 5-7 bucks I guess and they are well supported under Linux and they work without any glitches as well.

Also, in terms of Linux distros, you may decide to check out this page here:

http://www.bp6.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=2356

Look for my post where I recommend Xandros free download version for trying out Linux. From your post it seems like you don't want to get your fingers dirty at once so I think Xandros would be your best bet for starters.

lungster · Post by **lungster** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:12 am

purrkur:

- The NIC is PCI - an Intel part. I used it under Windows because its drivers were always MP-stable. Not sure if it's supported by typical Linux distros. I should have a spare Linksys somewhere I can drop in; or I'll go with your recommendation on the RTL based NIC.

- The Nvidia AGP card is no longer an issue. I dropped it into one of my kid's systems to get better game performance there. I'm now stuck with an old Matrox MGA PCI card! No games here but that's ok for now. I assume the MGA will be easily supported. I think I've got another video card sitting in my parts box somewhere. Parts just seem to grow on their own

- The ISA sound card problem didn't surprise me either. If anything I was surprised that SuSE found it. And it's not one of the Aureal Vortex cards. The Malibu is based on a Crystal chip. It's actually delivers decently high quality audio which is why I'd like to keep it; but is ISA nonetheless. Oh well. I'll probably just get a generic Cmedia 8738 card. Are these generally supported under Linux distros ?

- I'll give Xandros a try. Thanks !

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:42 pm

lungster wrote: - The NIC is PCI - an Intel part. I used it under Windows because its drivers were always MP-stable. Not sure if it's supported by typical Linux distros. I should have a spare Linksys somewhere I can drop in; or I'll go with your recommendation on the RTL based NIC.

OK. Good stuff. As far as I know, all Intel NICs are well supported under Linux. The only one I ever dealt with had no issues whatsoever actually. Do you have the NIC occupying the PCI place next to the AGP slot or the last PCI place? In that case I would move it because you might run into difficulties with IRQ sharing and so on.

lungster wrote: - The Nvidia AGP card is no longer an issue. I dropped it into one of my kid's systems to get better game performance there. I'm now stuck with an old Matrox MGA PCI card! No games here but that's ok for now. I assume the MGA will be easily supported. I think I've got another video card sitting in my parts box somewhere. Parts just seem to grow on their own

OK. That is actually fine either way. Matrox cards are extremely well supported under Linux!

lungster wrote: - The ISA sound card problem didn't surprise me either. If anything I was surprised that SuSE found it. And it's not one of the Aureal Vortex cards. The Malibu is based on a Crystal chip. It's actually delivers decently high quality audio which is why I'd like to keep it; but is ISA nonetheless. Oh well. I'll probably just get a generic Cmedia 8738 card. Are these generally supported under Linux distros ?

Hmmm. Let me check my 2.6.6 kernel. I have no idea since I have never had such a card. OK. Check. C-media 8738 and 8338 are both supported under 2.6 at least. So are all SoundBlaster cards and a whole pile of cards and onboard chipsets.

lungster wrote: - I'll give Xandros a try. Thanks !

It is a great distro for beginners for sure!

cavity · Post by **cavity** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:52 am

I just installed xandros on my bp6, and I am impressed. everything worked right away, I didnt have to mess around with anything. I am fairly new to linux, but its easier than windows to understand.

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:52 am

cavity wrote:I just installed xandros on my bp6, and I am impressed. everything worked right away, I didnt have to mess around with anything. I am fairly new to linux, but its easier than windows to understand.

Thanks for confirming what I have been saying cavity. What I have to do now is to install WMware so I can get a copy of Xandros running myself so I can support you guys

lungster · Post by **lungster** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:46 am

Just an update.

I tried SuSE 9.1 one more time figuring maybe it'll work better with the Matrox card instead of the nVidia. Nope; the screen went black when it was time to log in. So that's 2 strikes on SuSE and that's enough for me.

I installed Xandros and it is indeed very nice. It couldn't find my Linksys NIC so I put the Intel back in and it was recognized. But - I still can't get out of the box. I set it for DHCP but no IP addresses get assigned. My network has 7 other systems sharing a DSL line through a Siemens router and all that runs very smoothly. Gonna have to put in more time to debug this. Come to think of it, of the various Linux installations I've done over the last few years, only a Red Hat installation connected to the internet with no problems. Sigh.

Glad to hear the CMedia 8738 is supported. I'd rather get one of those than anything from Creative Labs.

FYI, my system is pretty bare - Matrox PCI in slot 1, NIC in slot 3, and sound in the 2nd ISA slot. Two IDE drives share one controller and two optical drives share the second. PCI slot 2 has been iffy since day 1 - yup the one slot tha's supposed to be the savior for BP6 users is the one slot on my mobo that's bad (messed up interrupts!). Funny thing is that I never had an IRQ sharing problem with the Highpoint controllers on slot3 unlike other users.

thanks again purrkur

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:33 pm

Thanks for the update Lungster. Just FYI, I checked the Xandros website and there is indeed a forum there for support where users help each other solve problems in the usual Linux spirit. the site is found here.

You have to register (of course) to post, but you may find answers there to your DHCP problems and if you don't find them then you may find someone who has "been there/done that"

Cool to hear that you are moving to Linux!

lungster · Post by **lungster** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:42 am

purrkur wrote:Thanks for the update Lungster. Just FYI, I checked the Xandros website and there is indeed a forum there for support where users help each other solve problems in the usual Linux spirit. the site is found here.

Thanks for the tip !

lungster · Post by **lungster** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:47 pm

Just a quick update. I received a Chaintech 8738 based 6-channel sound card from Newegg ($13.50), dropped it into the last PCI slot, pulled the old Malibu and not only is the sound working but the network works great now !

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:30 pm

lungster wrote:Just a quick update. I received a Chaintech 8738 based 6-channel sound card from Newegg ($13.50), dropped it into the last PCI slot, pulled the old Malibu and not only is the sound working but the network works great now !

Thanks for the update! It is great to hear that things are working as they should!

What I believe is that you had an IRQ issue. It certainly sounds like it anyway. How can you check if you have an IRQ problem? Well, if you can boot up into the graphical interface then you can use the graphical "Control Center" to see what is going on. But if you can't get your graphics adapter working? And where is the Control Center getting its information from??

The answer is the "proc" file system. It is located at "/proc" and it is sometimes called the kernel file system. So, if you want to list your IRQ usage then write the following from the command line:

more /proc/interrupts

Other interesting system files in the proc file system are: cpuinfo, meminfo and pci. Use the command "more", "cat" or "less" to read them to see what they are all about. FYI: You should not try to mess with files or write new files into /proc....

hugoc · Post by **hugoc** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:54 pm

I'd cast a vote for Yoper (http://www.yoper.com/). It's very fast, which is great for older hardware like the BP6. It seems every bit as snappy as WinXP on my system. It's scratchbuilt and not based on another distro although it does use some other distros systems, like Kudzu. All my hardware was automatically detected without any problems, and my system is fairly stuffed.

One CD only and not many extras - no Gnome, OpenOffice or KOffice or (bizarrely) XMMS, but you can install those after the fact. Personally, I prefer a lighter distro I can add to than a bloated one that bogs my hard drive with multiple office suites and other gobbledygook.

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:51 pm

hugoc wrote:I'd cast a vote for Yoper (http://www.yoper.com/). It's very fast, which is great for older hardware like the BP6. It seems every bit as snappy as WinXP on my system. It's scratchbuilt and not based on another distro although it does use some other distros systems, like Kudzu. All my hardware was automatically detected without any problems, and my system is fairly stuffed.

One CD only and not many extras - no Gnome, OpenOffice or KOffice or (bizarrely) XMMS, but you can install those after the fact. Personally, I prefer a lighter distro I can add to than a bloated one that bogs my hard drive with multiple office suites and other gobbledygook.

Hmmm. Yoper is good. I agree. However, you should consider that it will only run on 686 processors or better so while it will work on a BP6, it won't run on anything less that that so it isn't all *good* for older hardware

Also, something detected on one distro is also capable of being detected on any other Linux distro. In this case there was a IRQ conflict that I am not so sure if any of the hardware detectors could fix, be it Kudzu, Hotplug or Discover.

This thread was all about getting a distro for someone who is new to Linux and doesn't want any problems. I will therefore continue to recommend Xandros because Yoper is for those who know at least a little bit about how Linux works. How do you explain to a newbie that Yoper can install .deb, .rpm and .tgz packages without any issues when they don't even know what that is? Xandros aims at being an XP replacement. Yoper doesn't.

But other than that I must agree that Yoper is nice...

hugoc · Post by **hugoc** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:19 pm

you should consider that it will only run on 686 processors or better so while it will work on a BP6, it won't run on anything less that that so it isn't all *good* for older hardware

It brings a tear to my eye to say it, but the BP6 is older hardware now.

Certainly Yoper won't work on a pre-P6 machine, but how many hardware enthusiasts are running one of those? Certainly if they are, it'd probably be for a non-X firewall/router or fileserver.

Regarding your other points, I'd fully agree that Xandros or even something like Linspire (if you don't mind paying for it) is better for a Linux newbie. However, Yoper doesn't need more than basic knowledge - certainly nothing like what Slackware or Debian need - and so it's worth considering in a few months, when you know the basics.

But other than that I must agree that Yoper is nice...

I like where it's going. I think it's a good idea to have a fast, pretty and desktop-oriented Linux. Certainly Fedora and Mandrake are trying to go in that direction, but neither can touch Yoper for speed, and one of the key disappointments when Windows users move to Linux is that X is so damnably slow. I think their next release should have OpenOffice and/or KOffice and XMMS, though, for Pete's sake. Cut-down systems are great, but desktop users need and expect an office suite and decent media player.

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:35 am

hugoc wrote:It brings a tear to my eye to say it, but the BP6 is older hardware now. Certainly Yoper won't work on a pre-P6 machine, but how many hardware enthusiasts are running one of those? Certainly if they are, it'd probably be for a non-X firewall/router or fileserver.

I am! I am currently building a new web/mail machine and the hardware is a K6-2 500MHz. That processor is a 586 processor and not 686. However, it is headless/X-less and running Debian, which *is* the champion when it comes to running Linux on ancient hardware.

hugoc wrote:Regarding your other points, I'd fully agree that Xandros or even something like Linspire (if you don't mind paying for it) is better for a Linux newbie. However, Yoper doesn't need more than basic knowledge - certainly nothing like what Slackware or Debian need - and so it's worth considering in a few months, when you know the basics.

I don't have the extensive knowledge of Yoper (yet) so I can't comment but from what I have read it is very good. However, what a distro like Xandros does for you is configure printers, network (Samba, NFS etc) all during the install process, similar to Windows. I doubt Yoper does that!

hugoc wrote:I like where it's going. I think it's a good idea to have a fast, pretty and desktop-oriented Linux. Certainly Fedora and Mandrake are trying to go in that direction, but neither can touch Yoper for speed, and one of the key disappointments when Windows users move to Linux is that X is so damnably slow. I think their next release should have OpenOffice and/or KOffice and XMMS, though, for Pete's sake. Cut-down systems are great, but desktop users need and expect an office suite and decent media player.

I have never liked Mandrake and I think Fedora is a step in the wrong direction. What they are trying to do is to be a second Debian. Well, they why use Fedora when you can get what it is trying to copy (and is much better in the process)? I am a Gentoo/Debian user myself but now that you cought my interest I will have to give Yoper a look!

Btw, what do you mean when you say X is slow?

davd_bob · Post by **davd_bob** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:55 am

This is GREAT dialog.
In fact the whole thread is great and the information is really helpful.
I like what I hear about Xandros and Yoper.
I have Mandrake 9 and now I WON't bother installing it when I get my BP6 back online, which I had to use its case on a family members system because, (tears running down my face) it IS an older piece of hardware.

edited 9/24/2004 I installed the Mandrake 9.1.

hugoc · Post by **hugoc** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 2:21 pm

the hardware is a K6-2 500MHz. That processor is a 586 processor and not 686. However, it is headless/X-less and running Debian

Ah-ha! Exactly.

However, what a distro like Xandros does for you is configure printers, network (Samba, NFS etc) all during the install process, similar to Windows. I doubt Yoper does that!

Truthfully, I don't know. It did detect all the hardware I had perfectly, got my cable internet (via Ethernet) set up just fine with no configuration necessary, etc. The only thing I had a problem with was Xinerama, but then that gave me headaches on every distro.

have never liked Mandrake and I think Fedora is a step in the wrong direction. What they are trying to do is to be a second Debian.

I don't think that's the case. Debian is definitely an experienced users system, whereas Mandrake and Fedora are trying to set themselves up as hand-holding beginners systems. I think Mandrake and Fedora want to be like MacOS X, however, what they haven't realised is that Apple has loads of personnel and millions of dollars allocated to useability and ergonomics, which they don't. As a result, I find Mandrake and Fedora easy in some respects but counter-intuitive and full of kludges in others. It's probably not their fault, Linux is by nature kludgy, it's a necessary evil of open-source. Everybody wants to code new features, nobody wants to streamline and design better interfaces.

Btw, what do you mean when you say X is slow?

I probably mis-spoke. X itself is only part of the problem as it uses a lot of overhead on things like network-transparent windowing which are utterly useless to the desktop/home user and become cycle-suckers in a standalone environment. The kernel itself is evidently causing a problem as we saw when the optimisations in 2.6 sped the whole thing up considerably, but most of the trouble as I see it is in window managers like Gnome and KDE. The problem is that you can either have loads of features, but slow system response, or a stripped-down window manager (like XFCE) with little to none of the features that home users want (like desktop icons). The problem with that is that Windows XP offers both.

Possibly a good avenue that GNU/Linux should go down is to specialise, as Windows has, into desktop/workstation/server/enterprise models. At the moment, everybody gets to use the enterprise-level system, which is complete overkill for the home user.

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:09 pm

hugoc wrote:Truthfully, I don't know. It did detect all the hardware I had perfectly, got my cable internet (via Ethernet) set up just fine with no configuration necessary, etc. The only thing I had a problem with was Xinerama, but then that gave me headaches on every distro.

Hmm. Install a network printer driven by a windows printer server? I have never seen any Linux distro do that except for Xandros.

hugoc wrote:I don't think that's the case. Debian is definitely an experienced users system, whereas Mandrake and Fedora are trying to set themselves up as hand-holding beginners systems. I think Mandrake and Fedora want to be like MacOS X, however, what they haven't realised is that Apple has loads of personnel and millions of dollars allocated to useability and ergonomics, which they don't. As a result, I find Mandrake and Fedora easy in some respects but counter-intuitive and full of kludges in others. It's probably not their fault, Linux is by nature kludgy, it's a necessary evil of open-source. Everybody wants to code new features, nobody wants to streamline and design better interfaces.

OK. I don't agree that they are trying to compete with OS X, except for maybe Mandrake which is a distro that is trying to be a Desktop distro (competing with Windows too) while holding on to the Linux server roots. As long as they cannot decide what direction they want to go in, I would say that they will never excel at either. They seem to have a loyal following though and that is fine by me.

Fedora on the other hand is a testbed for Redhat. Their aim is to build a community that works on the cutting edge stuff, integrating it (sometimes unsuccessfully) and then maybe that will be included into the Redhat stable distros that are sold on the market. This is evident when you read their project description that starts as follows:

"The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc."

hugoc wrote:I probably mis-spoke. X itself is only part of the problem as it uses a lot of overhead on things like network-transparent windowing which are utterly useless to the desktop/home user and become cycle-suckers in a standalone environment. The kernel itself is evidently causing a problem as we saw when the optimisations in 2.6 sped the whole thing up considerably, but most of the trouble as I see it is in window managers like Gnome and KDE. The problem is that you can either have loads of features, but slow system response, or a stripped-down window manager (like XFCE) with little to none of the features that home users want (like desktop icons). The problem with that is that Windows XP offers both.

OK. I get it. What you are saying that there are a lot of features built into X that slow the desktop down. But you are actually speaking of 3 different things here:

1. Network-transparent Windowing.
2. Kernel related issues that speed up X.
3. Window manager features.

Only the first actually relates to X and the other two have nothing to do with it. Let me explain:

1. This is an X feature and it has been since pretty much day one. You say this feature is useless which makes me surprised. I use it quite a lot actually. You know why? Because I am a Linux user and not a Windows user running Linux. There is a difference there. If you come from a Windows world then I can see that this isn't something that you will readily use. However, this technology is (finally) being brought to Windows through Citrix. Windows people who know nothing of Unix/Linux are lyrical about this so it is always fun to tell them that it is a copy of a technology that is more than 20 years old in the Unix world. I use this at work (quite a lot since I administer machines that I don't have physical access to) and even at home as well on occasion to solve issues like security. So when you say that this technology is useless, from what angle are you speaking from? Are you a Unix/Linux person who works with multiple Unix/Linux systems on a daily basis?

2. Kernel. I am not really sure how versed you are in kernel matters but there is actually *nothing* in the kernel that ties it to X functionality. Nothing. In Windows, the graphical system is a part of the kernel. This is one of the reasons for unstability and lack of security on the platform (and the BSOD). There were changes made in the 2.6 kernel that certainly had an effect on how X feels to the user but that is it. The question was how the kernel deals with, and how it should deal with latency. The way the 2.6 kernel works will allow userspace programs to interrupt the kernel when the kernel is hogging the cpu. This will give you *perceived*speed because things will appear to happen instantly, but the cpu will still be working on other issues as well so other jobs will take longer to execute because of this. As a matter of fact, there are plans to make this functionality selectable in the kernel and not standard because in many real life cases the 2.4 kernel will be faster at executing jobs than 2.6. So the kernel doesn't care one bit about X. It is just another userspace program.

3. Window manager features. Hmm. I am not really sure what you are getting at here. You jump from talking about X and the kernel to how this affects Gnome and KDE, mentioning featuritis. Well, kernel and X have nothing to do with featuritis in Gnome and KDE.

Gnome and KDE are heavyweight desktop systems that provide a tremendous amount of eye-candy, tweaks and other unnecessary stuff. But just like XP, you can turn off all of the eye candy if you want. You can strip down both Gnome and KDE so that none of the featuritis stuff is present. Your system will be snappier as a result, but you will still be running one of the heavyweights in terms of desktop environments. In fact, I would go as far as saying that KDE, once loaded into memory on a "slow" machine is snappier than XP on any given day. I am now running Beta2 of KDE version 3.3 and they have brought the bloat down even further. Now as we all know, Longhorn (the vapourware) will probably make all of your computers obsolete when it hits the shelves....whenever.

At the end of the day, Linux is about choice. Why should you want everybody locked into the same way of doing things? I got a Pentium 100MHz with 128 megs of memory running X. I am running fluxbox as the desktop of choice and it is a lot faster loading than, say Windows 95 on that box. I think it is a bit sad that people want to make Linux into Windows lookalike even when it comes to Desktop and server stuff. I just don't agree with that. Freedom and choice is what it is all about. If I want to buy myself a Pentium IV EE edition and run Linux on it in text mode, then that is what I will do. I have the freedom of making that choice. Which brings me to your next point...

hugoc wrote:Possibly a good avenue that GNU/Linux should go down is to specialise, as Windows has, into desktop/workstation/server/enterprise models. At the moment, everybody gets to use the enterprise-level system, which is complete overkill for the home user.

This is what we don't want! Why mimic Windows? You also need to be a bit more specific here. When you say "Linux", do you mean the kernel or distros? Because distros are already doing the Desktop/WS/Server/Enterprise stuff (See RH and Suse). I see absolutely no need to fork the kernel into four different projects according to the above. The way the kernel is built here is the strength. You can build a kernel for a desktop with an old CPU and you can build an enterprise kernel that will work on 64 processor machines.

And I don't agree that everybody uses an enterprise-level system at home. Possibly if you take something like Redhat 9 and say "install everything" which means that you will install something like 6 gigs worth of programs on your disk. But that is your choice then.

When I build a Debian Desktop machine, I set up something called the "base" installation. That installation is 141 megs in size. I got a fully functional Linux box out of 141 megs. Then, I start installing what I want on the machine, pulling in packages that I want and nothing else. It is beautiful. I get exactly what I want! Gentoo is pretty much the same.

Btw, this is what Xandros, Linspire etc will give you. A desktop system. Nothing more, nothing less. You can install an ftp server or Apache, sure but it is not there by default (on Xandros anyway). So all in all, I think that we are already seeing what you say is missing!

OK. I gotta quit this rant. I hope I didn't come on too strong because that is not really what I wanted. However, the reason for my strong feelings on this is that I have been actively using Linux since 1997. We are getting very many new users now migrating from Windows and I see many of them advocating that we turn it into another Windows. I feel that people who say that are missing the point. Why make another Windows when it already exits? I usually tell people that if they feel so strongly for Windows they should continue using it. And no, I am not being anti-MS here. Windows in all shapes and forms is one of the three OS that I work actively with (at work) and I got no problems with it. If people want to pay for that product then that is just fine with me. I won't do it but that doesn't mean that I think others shouldn't do it either.

I am going out of town for a week or so but I should hopefully be able to log in sometime during the week and continue the discussion if you so desire!

Cheers,

hugoc · Post by **hugoc** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:38 pm

What you are saying that there are a lot of features built into X that slow the desktop down. But you are actually speaking of 3 different things here

No, you're misquoting me. What I said was:

I probably mis-spoke. X itself is only part of the problem

I think what I said thereafter tallies with that. Some of the problem is due to X overhead, but there are other culprits in Linux responsiveness or lack thereof which I talked about - kernel components that are unnecessary on the desktop, window manager bloat etc.

This is an X feature and it has been since pretty much day one. You say this feature is useless which makes me surprised.

Again, you are misquoting me. What I said was:

network-transparent windowing which are utterly useless to the desktop/home user

The majority of home users aren't on any kind of network at all and have a single PC. To those users, network transparency (in fact, virtually all network features barring those necessary for internet connectivity) is, by and large, useless.

Well, kernel and X have nothing to do with featuritis in Gnome and KDE.

I didn't say that, either.

At the end of the day, Linux is about choice.

Unfortunately, while choice is good for power users and enthusiasts, it's not what the average home user wants. They may think they do, but they don't. The average home user, in my experience, wants a simple, responsive and easy-to-use system that will let him do what he needs to get done (e-mail, office work, internet and a few games) with a minimum of fuss. So far, Linux does not provide that. Gnome, KDE or something else? How do they know which one they want? Home users don't want to allocate time to evaluating different window managers or anything else. They certainly don't want to worry about library incompatibilities, package management or any of the other hullabaloo that comes as part of the deal with all these different choices.

This is what we don't want! Why mimic Windows?

Because Windows has been unbelievably successful in penetrating the desktop market. Linux developers cannot put blinders on to this and fool themselves that every end-user is a computer enthusiast, because they are not. Microsoft has had great success building responsive, easy-to-use and unified, polished solutions that present a minimum of choice and obligation of user configuration with the functionality that desktop users want. Linux still cannot offer that. I'm not saying that Linux should be the same, but you can't pretend that a radically different model is going to work. Linux developers need to stop thinking like geeks and start thinking like Joe Sixpack, and work on ease-of-use and idiotproofing.

And I don't agree that everybody uses an enterprise-level system at home.

Things like the network-transparency in X need to be optional. These are enterprise-level features and are just bloat in a desktop system.

Btw, this is what Xandros, Linspire etc will give you. A desktop system. Nothing more, nothing less. You can install an ftp server or Apache, sure but it is not there by default (on Xandros anyway). So all in all, I think that we are already seeing what you say is missing!

Great, that's what we need more of. However, Linux is still crying out for some basic changes in the system. For instance, a unified installation model like Installshield will do wonders. Linux package management is such a patchwork hunk of mismatched garbage. Most of the solutions out there are anything but transparent to the user. With a win32 app, I run the installer and it works. If I try to install an RPM, who knows how deep I'll have to go into dependency hell before it works? I've spent hours trying to get software to work. Most home users wouldn't bother.

Anyway, as you said, I'm not trying to rant. I agree with your take on Fedora and Mandrake but I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

headseed · Post by **headseed** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:33 pm

Not too much to add here excpet to say that I like Libranet (debian based)... its nice, Xandros was too much windows-like for me to handle, I still want to learn to do a kernel recompile and what not.

lungster · Post by **lungster** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:07 pm

Nice little exchange here guys; thanks.

Just thought I'd put in my $0.02 from a Linux newbie perspective. Well, actually I may not fully qualify as a Linux newbie since I used to develop X-windows servers and their DDX layers on Unix back in the late '80s. But it has been a very long time since I've had to deal with cryptic command names

re: the "windows" look - like it or not, the L&F of Windows is here (until MS changes it!). As a user, it's not always a matter of what I like or don't like but whether I can work with it because it's familiar to me. In that context, I like Xandros for the very reason that it does look like Windows. In other words, as I switch from a Windows system to a Xandros system, I don't have to do as large a context switch on my brain to get going. In terms of efficiency that's a big win.

re: x-server - I don't find it slow. More importantly, I appreciate the very different architecture of X-windows versus MS Windows. X is just another process as is the window manager and the clients. Not so with Windows. The ease with which one can change window managers, change its behavior, redirect the output, change just about anything is priceless. That form of flexibility just doesn't exist on Windows out of the box.

re: installation friendliness - The very first Linux I installed was Red Hat 6 quite some time ago. The experience sucked and it was a long time before I went back to trying to install Linux. MS had similar problems and they've been fighting that ever since. Compared to the early days of Windows, MS has done quite a good job to improve their testing, installation, distribution and upgrade experience. Linux is making nice headway on the overall experience. Xandros and Mandrake both look pretty good on getting the user up and running.

Billl · Post by **Billl** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:52 pm

purrkur wrote:Thanks for the update Lungster. Just FYI, I checked the Xandros website and there is indeed a forum there for support where users help each other solve problems in the usual Linux spirit. the site is found here.

You have to register (of course) to post, but you may find answers there to your DHCP problems and if you don't find them then you may find someone who has "been there/done that"

Cool to hear that you are moving to Linux!

Thanks for the link Purrkur. I'll try Xandros out see what I think.

I was curious what you think about RPM based packages in general? I read an article over at http://www.distrowatch.com/dwres.php?re ... rticle-rpm a couple weeks back about going with Source based distro's versus RPM based. It would seem from the article that source seems the way to go? I particularly liked Sorcerer http://www.distrowatch.com/dwres.php?re ... w-sorcerer . The idea of it constantly updating itself is pretty neat.

I've been a Windows user since the first version. But I have to say I'm ready to change. I don't much like the direction Gate's and company are headed. Although I'll be a newbie at Linux I should pick it up fairly easily. Since I have a strong background in hardware. Been building my own machines for over 10 years now. Any thoughts you have on this would be appreciated.

Billl

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:23 pm

hugoc wrote:Things like the network-transparency in X need to be optional. These are enterprise-level features and are just bloat in a desktop system.

I can mention a whole list of things that are bloatware in Windows that should be optional but they are not (I mean DirectX in Windows Server products?? *hellooooooo*). I actually agree with a lot of the things you are saying. There is one this that I have a very hard time understanding though, and I touched upon this in my response: If all your desktop needs are found in Windows, why bother with Linux? Again, I am not anti-MS like many Linux sealots are and I will recommend Windows to some folks I know. I also believe in using a product for what it was built for. You say that Windows is extremely successful on the desktop and I won't argue with you except to say that if it solves your needs then you don't need to look no further.

I should also tell you that I think the main difference that you and I got is that I don't believe that everything Linux should be "dumbed" down so that Joe user can install it and run it. That is not the future for Linux. The future is to be able to run on different platforms from everything to hand helds (embedded) to supercomputers. If you think that Linux is trying to replace Windows then that is only a fraction of what people are using it to do.

For instance, you may not care if Linux runs on Hitachi's SuperH 64 bit processors until you buy an advanced digital camera that uses that product and Linux as the embedded OS. But then again, you won't care about that either I guess since you won't even know that you are actually using Linux. This is a strength that Windows Lacks (even the CE/Pocket/whatever products they have that only support a processor or two). Linux is actually being used in a whole range of things that have nothing to do with the Desktop.

My stance is that if distros like Xandros and Linspire want to try to use Linux to build a Windows Desktop replacement then so be it. I have nothing against their work. However, don't ask everything Linux to change just for that narrow segment of what Linux is involved in.

hugoc wrote:Great, that's what we need more of. However, Linux is still crying out for some basic changes in the system. For instance, a unified installation model like Installshield will do wonders.

Installshield?? The bloatware product that is so unbelivably poor on flexibility that my company was forced to build our own installation tool for Windows (while standard tools in Solaris and Linux do just fine)?? I don't agree with you here.

I think the next step we need is to meet and grab a beer over this discussion

I have always wanted to make my way to Canada

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:46 pm

Billl wrote:I was curious what you think about RPM based packages in general? I read an article over at http://www.distrowatch.com/dwres.php?re ... rticle-rpm a couple weeks back about going with Source based distro's versus RPM based. It would seem from the article that source seems the way to go? I particularly liked Sorcerer http://www.distrowatch.com/dwres.php?re ... w-sorcerer . The idea of it constantly updating itself is pretty neat.

Hi Billl, glad to see you join in the discussion.

I actually don't like RPM distributions. I have an extensive knowledge of them both private and at work (Redhat & Suse) but the thing with RPM's is that this is not really a packaging solution, but more an installer (they will not resolve dependencies for you). This is why I like Debian which is not source based. They got this tool called "apt" that will resolve dependencies for you when you install binary packages and it works just great! However, not many know that "apt" is not the installer tool that Debian uses (or Debian derived distros). The installed is actually called "dpkg" and that is the tool that "apt" uses to install packages.

So many RPM based distros have built their own dependency solvers similar to "apt" like Mandrake uses "urpmi" and Redhat have their own tool as well, but none come close to providing the functionality that apt gives you.

If you install Xandros then you will be able to use apt to install packages. There is of course a graphical tool in Xandros that actually uses apt and dpkg to install packages but if you enter the command line you can use apt as well to query and install packages without problems. It works just fine as Xandros is a Debian product.

FWIW I can also say that there is *nothing* in Windows that compares to the functionality of apt. It is simply a superior installer which is text based. It is up to companies like Xandros to provide Joe user with a graphical implementation of it to make is user friendly (and they have).

Let me just have a word on the distribution that hugoc is using and talking about (Yoper). This distribution is a binary distribution that can actually use all of the different packaging tools found in Linux. While other distros can do this, what makes Yoper unique (Correct me if I am wrong hugoc because I haven't installed and tested Yoper yet) is that if you install a package with the rpm installer then the Debian based apt tool will be aware of what you have installed under rpm. This is a unique functionality that others don't have. The package database used under rpm is not that same as the one found under dpkg so this cross package install possibility in Yoper would be a bonus indeed.

Billl wrote:I've been a Windows user since the first version. But I have to say I'm ready to change. I don't much like the direction Gate's and company are headed. Although I'll be a newbie at Linux I should pick it up fairly easily. Since I have a strong background in hardware. Been building my own machines for over 10 years now. Any thoughts you have on this would be appreciated.

OK. Source distributions are great! I love Gentoo for that matter. Howerver, Gentoo is overkill for you to begin with. Try something easy like Xandros for starters. After that, try something like Debian if you feel adventurous (FWIW, their new installer due in September is fantastic! it will detect your hardware and fix you up just like many distros will but it a bit more crude installation program). If you still feel like going with a source based distro then I would recommend Gentoo. Why? Well, it is the biggest of the source based distros and it has a fantasic forums where you can get help. I have even seen newbies come with horribly simple questions only to get patient, well thought out answers. Definitely recommended!

hugoc · Post by **hugoc** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:53 am

I can mention a whole list of things that are bloatware in Windows that should be optional but they are not (I mean DirectX in Windows Server products?? *hellooooooo*).

Granted, and absolutely, but that's no reason to be repeating those errors in Linux, I'm sure you agree. It's plain to see that there are a great many uses out there, of which the desktop is only one, and Linux will do very well if it can not only adapt to the needs of the particular user or task but do so transparently. Currently, both are only done partially. Linux can be optimised for a particular task, but only so far (no way to turn off network window transparency for a standalone system) and with a lot of user involvement (Yoper's developer said that all of what he had done for speed could be done for any other distro, but it would take a lot of time and in-depth knowledge).

If all your desktop needs are found in Windows, why bother with Linux?

First of all, I'm not the typical desktop user, I am actually an enthusiast and I like to tinker. Secondly, where would we be if James Watt had said, "hey, screw this steam-engine crap, horses are working out just fine"? Just because what I have now seems perfectly satisfactory doesn't mean that I might not find something even better, so I'm open-minded and willing to experiment.

If you think that Linux is trying to replace Windows then that is only a fraction of what people are using it to do.

Absolutely, but all the hoo-har in the Linux world right now is about the desktop market and how to unseat Microsoft. It seems that everyone wants to go there and I'm just offering my $0.02 on how they might be able to. I'm not saying that the core of Linux needs to change just for the desktop because plainly that would damage what has made it such a great server OS (for instance), however, we might also consider that one size does not fit all and perhaps the OS that made such a great e-commerce server might not also make a great desktop OS for the computer illiterate?

Installshield?? The bloatware product that is so unbelivably poor on flexibility that my company was forced to build our own installation tool for Windows (while standard tools in Solaris and Linux do just fine)?? I don't agree with you here.

My point is that for a desktop user, Installshield is easy and transparent. The power user such as yourself can pick holes, but you don't need Installshield anyway. Linux should develop some kind of unified installer system, or settle on a standard it already has like apt. The trouble is that everybody is pulling in different directions, some developers release apt packages, some rpm, some are distributing source. We need to decide what method we're using and just announce, hey, from now on everybody needs to get using apt (or whatever). And then develop apt and make it as user-friendly and intuitive as possible for the desktop users, and remember to retain the advanced options for people such as yourself.

The command line is great, but home users won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

I think the next step we need is to meet and grab a beer over this discussion I have always wanted to make my way to Canada

Sure! Canadian beer is better than American beer.

BP6.Com

Seeking Linux recommendation for BP6

Seeking Linux recommendation for BP6

two steps forward.... one step back....