Nobified[H]
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,095
Alright, alrighty...I will bite, can anyone recommend a Linux Distro for me? 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
What would get you to switch to linux from windows?
- Thread starter Darakian
- Start date
Start with ubuntu or linux mint. They've massive user bases which makes googling problems a lot easier than for other distros. Also mint uses a window manager called cinnamon which is very windows 7 esque. Ubuntu looks more like a sideways OSX.Alright, alrighty...I will bite, can anyone recommend a Linux Distro for me?
Linux Mint Cinnamon is one of the easier distros, in terms of adding expected things like playback codecs or software, while giving a standard desktop experience.
Standard Ubuntu is still kind of lost in its UI direction, which IMO is a mess, so variants (KDE, Xfce, etc) of it have more usable UIs.
Standard Ubuntu is still kind of lost in its UI direction, which IMO is a mess, so variants (KDE, Xfce, etc) of it have more usable UIs.
michalrz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,337
Alright, alrighty...I will bite, can anyone recommend a Linux Distro for me?
Tested Mint KDE a few days ago myself, having already tested a dozen others in the past.
It is good. Maybe connect a separate hard drive and disconnect the main one for testing - only issue really.
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
I don't recommend vanilla Ubuntu at all, the only time I had issues it was while running Vanilla Ubuntu. The Ubuntu derivatives like Ubuntu MATE, Linux Mint, Ubuntu Gnome, etc are all far less hassle.
That coupled with the fact that I don't find the Unity interface terribly intuitive.
That coupled with the fact that I don't find the Unity interface terribly intuitive.
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
Driver issues exist under every OS, and while Windows is one of the least troublesome operating systems regarding such issues, issues do still exist and can be just as frustrating. Furthermore, the only time I use terminal is to install software via apt, which as demonstrated is stupidly easy. In every other instance I rarely need to open the terminal.
One point worth considering is that everything you describe above is also true under OSX/macOS, yet no one claims Apples operating system is less intuitive even though it's a derivative of BSD and therefore literally identical to Linux - Right down to it's reliance on terminal usage for advanced tasks. What this tends to highlight is that people don't really have an issue with Linux as such, realistically speaking the real issue is that they want a Windows clone OS, but there is no reason whatsoever for an OS to behave identically to Windows. I tend to blame this on an entire generation that has never known anything but Microsoft's operating system, in my day computing was fragmented with a number of differing makes and models all with their own OS and methods of usage so change isn't as daunting for myself. People claim to have used Linux, however I honestly believe their usage was terribly limited due to the false generalisations they're throwing around regarding the OS.
Just an observation.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
For edification sake, OSX is literally NOT the same thing as Linux. BSD and Linux are opposite sides of the same goal. BSD is very much based off of actual UNIX code, while Linux was completely built from scratch. They operate in very similar fashions, but are not literally identical. OSX also has many changes to it down the road from from its origins (as does Linux), and while you can run many of the same things on OSX as you might be able to on Linux, they still do not operate quite the same. Also there is that big difference where Linux was created to be free/open and OSX is pay/closed.
EDIT: I would also find it hilarious to see you tell Linus Torvalds that OSX is literally identical to Linux, lol. That would get quite a laugh from everyone watching.
What this tends to highlight is that people don't really have an issue with Linux as such, realistically speaking the real issue is that they want a Windows clone OS, but there is no reason whatsoever for an OS to behave identically to Windows. I tend to blame this on an entire generation that has never known anything but Microsoft's operating system, in my day computing was fragmented with a number of differing makes and models all with their own OS and methods of usage so change isn't as daunting for myself. People claim to have used Linux, however I honestly believe their usage was terribly limited due to the false generalisations they're throwing around regarding the OS.
Just an observation.
The reason no one is talking about OSX is because the thread was about getting people to change from Microsoft Windows a pay/closed OS to Linux a free/open OS and what it would take to get them to change (What would get you to switch to linux from windows?). So not really sure how OSX is at all relevant to this.
Last edited:
I switched 100% around 4 months ago or so... at last formatting my windows drive. I have been dual booting for years, and found I was barely ever rebooting to windows anymore. The final straw was booting windows and waiting for an update to complete that changed all my system settings. I realized I hadn't been pecking through policy editors and the like for so long I had to really think to put things back.... about half way though that process I thought, screw this.
I have been switching smaller companies over to full and partial Linux setups for a few years now, I kept windows around for games. I realized though over the last year or two the majority of games I have been purchasing have been on Linux via steam. It made dumping MS much easier. I do some music production and had already moved to Linux, where I have been using renoise and bitwig (its not true that Linux users want everything free)
As for distro, I have worked with plenty for different situations. One major strength of Linux which is often framed as a negative, is the number of base distros / desktop options. When I'm switching companies over its nice to have the freedom to choose. What works for one company may not work for the next, there is a solution for everything once you get a bit of experience with the pros and cons of one distro vs another.
For my own use I have played around with just about everything, and use a different distro as my main driver then I install for companies. I have been running Manjaro myself, and if I'm helping out friends and family I always get them on either Mint or Manjaro. The main advantage to both imho is the ability to install using non-free drivers. Both distros have a good hardware utility that will detect and install non-free drivers for GPUs CPUs and chipsets. It makes a huge difference in terms of usability as I see it. Mint is a great option for people new to Linux... imo its the closest thing Linux has to a Windows alternative for the masses right now. Manjaro is based on Arch and yet still retains much of the easy of use Mint has. I have run arch... and do have a streamed down arch box I use for some other stuff, Manjaro just makes life easier. Its just less work when new GPU drivers drop ect then running vanilla Arch and having edit grep and such before I recompile the kernel when those drivers hit. As I see it Manjaro is a very close second to Mint in terms of easy of use (I have to admit if something breaks, of the two mint is going to be easier for the average user to right), however it is cleaner, faster... and if (or once) you know Linux fairly well is easier to maintain and expand on... its rolling and has access to the AUR repository major +s for Linux nerds.
I have been switching smaller companies over to full and partial Linux setups for a few years now, I kept windows around for games. I realized though over the last year or two the majority of games I have been purchasing have been on Linux via steam. It made dumping MS much easier. I do some music production and had already moved to Linux, where I have been using renoise and bitwig (its not true that Linux users want everything free)
As for distro, I have worked with plenty for different situations. One major strength of Linux which is often framed as a negative, is the number of base distros / desktop options. When I'm switching companies over its nice to have the freedom to choose. What works for one company may not work for the next, there is a solution for everything once you get a bit of experience with the pros and cons of one distro vs another.
For my own use I have played around with just about everything, and use a different distro as my main driver then I install for companies. I have been running Manjaro myself, and if I'm helping out friends and family I always get them on either Mint or Manjaro. The main advantage to both imho is the ability to install using non-free drivers. Both distros have a good hardware utility that will detect and install non-free drivers for GPUs CPUs and chipsets. It makes a huge difference in terms of usability as I see it. Mint is a great option for people new to Linux... imo its the closest thing Linux has to a Windows alternative for the masses right now. Manjaro is based on Arch and yet still retains much of the easy of use Mint has. I have run arch... and do have a streamed down arch box I use for some other stuff, Manjaro just makes life easier. Its just less work when new GPU drivers drop ect then running vanilla Arch and having edit grep and such before I recompile the kernel when those drivers hit. As I see it Manjaro is a very close second to Mint in terms of easy of use (I have to admit if something breaks, of the two mint is going to be easier for the average user to right), however it is cleaner, faster... and if (or once) you know Linux fairly well is easier to maintain and expand on... its rolling and has access to the AUR repository major +s for Linux nerds.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Sweet, all good reasons to switch. Not sure it's a common assumption that all Linux users want everything free though. At least that has never been my assumption, but then I have been using Linux for decades.
Personally I always felt this was the strength. It was certainly the reason I started messing with Linux in the first place was the almost infinite possibilities of configurations.
For reference the non-free drivers is something that is built into the base of Debian, which most of the Linux distros are derived from. This is why you typically have main contrib and non-free for the debian source list. Coincidentally Ubuntu also has something similar, but calls them different names, basically main (Canonical Officially supported free), universe (Not Canonical supported free), restricted (Canonical supported non-free), multiverse (Not Canonical supported non-free).
No doubt... its not that its hard to install GPU drivers and the like in almost any distro anymore. I can't think of many distros that force you to download the driver from the manufacturer and compile things like GPU drivers in a non x sever runlevel or anything. I have just found that for complete newbies to Linux.. those 2 distros are the best at starting right out of the gate with those drivers already up and running. For a newbie the other options always require them to get up and running with say a free driver like the nouveau Nvidia driver first. For folks like us that have been around linux for awhile, we don't have an issue dropping to a runlevel 3 and blacklisting nouveau if we need to... for someone coming from Windows only ever, that sounds like a nightmare. Mint and Manjaro both remove that one at least... GPU drivers are the biggest complaint I get from people I know that try Linux anyway, I guess its my middle age friends that know enough to buy good video cards but sometimes needed help with drivers even when they ran windows.
D
Deleted member 245375
Guest
Ok, since this thread is still going like the god damned Energizer bunny, I have to take issue with what you just said. Previously you've made your case quite clear: you're a Linux user, you like it, you (apparently) wish more people used it (yes I know you said you didn't want it to rule the world), and you have (again, apparently) no use for Windows in your particular computer usage and that's fine, really it is. But then you make a statement like the one I just quoted after you make a statement like this from an earlier post:
So, your attempted usage of the most basic Ubuntu distribution there is aka "vanilla" Ubuntu resulted in you having issues that you may or may not have been able to resolve but maybe ended up not having with some other Ubuntu derivative (you didn't specify so I'm making an assumption, unfortunately) means what, exactly? Your statement makes it sound like "I use Linux, and so can you, but don't mess with plain old vanilla Ubuntu because it didn't work for me and I had problems with it, use something else..."
That seems really... weird, I suppose, I can't think of a word that fits the particular description I had in mind but there's just something that's not quite right about what you've said, at least to me in my reading of your statements.
I'm not hounding you, just pointing out there's something there that doesn't make sense to me on a given level I can't quite specify.
I would say that for someone that can't get the most basic "untouched" unmodified bare version of Ubuntu to work without issues (and therein lies the rub, actually) it does strike me as somewhat odd that because of the trouble you had in your specific situation means that perhaps the advice you're offering - not recommending "vanilla" Ubuntu - doesn't fit. All the Ubuntu derivatives come from the "vanilla" Ubuntu base so one has to wonder exactly what is wrong with it - meaning it incurs some difficulty on the part of the end user - that could be causing the problem(s).
Right?
Not to jump in the middle of anything...
A Linux desktop is a lot more then just a base system.. every distro is using the same kernel, the bases are slightly different... and on top of that you have things like desktops and tweak tools ect that make distros unique. In the case of Ubuntu vanilla... its the desktop and the installer that many Linux people take issue with these days. I used to believe Ubuntu was a great distro to help grow Linux as it was seen as a mainstream distro. The more I have talked to new linux people that have tried it... the more I realize it turned them off of Linux. So yes on one hand you when your talking to people that may want to try Linux... you have to say yes you have heard right Ubuntu is the largest installed Linux base, and their software repositories are likely the most complete ect ect, knowing that they aren't likely going to love Unity, or feel that the install was as smooth as it should be for a modern OS. This is why many people talk about Mint, built on the Ubuntu base system but with a better installation system a different (more windows like) default desktop and defaults that are just better aimed at people coming from windows (installing a good selection of codecs and fonts ect are a big plus for switchers.... both easy enough to add with any distro, but not things people feel they should have to add as a first step these days)
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,438
I think the issue with Debian & Fedora-based distros is that using all sorts of third party PPAs/repos eventually turns into a big mess with different builds of apps needing different dependencies that conflict with each other. This is probably why people get turned off with Linux so much due to this. I've even had hellish issues with using the newest versions provided by third parties on Ubuntu.
That's why I recommend Arch & Gentoo-based distros to new users (Antergos - Arch, Sabayon - Gentoo, & Manjaro - Arch). These take the pain out of having to build/compile it & kick you right off to the desktop environment of your choice.
That's why I recommend Arch & Gentoo-based distros to new users (Antergos - Arch, Sabayon - Gentoo, & Manjaro - Arch). These take the pain out of having to build/compile it & kick you right off to the desktop environment of your choice.
I'm hopeful that this will be less of a problem once the dust settles on containerization. Snaps, Flatpacks, AppImage, etc... A lot of cool things happening in that space.
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,438
Docker-like function for desktop app installation? What distro is going this route?
Most of the major players should have support for them without much effort. I have not taken the time to play with them personally, but the brochure makes it sound that way and also relatively easy to get going.
Snaps seem to have the most traction at the moment and is the main focus of Ubuntu, with others adopting support.
snapcraft - Snaps are universal Linux packages
AppImage is also pretty well supported distribution wise, but I'm not sure off hand who or if there's a major contributor - AppImage
Self reply.. I just tried the demo app on the AppImage site, Subsurface, and it seems to work as advertised. Download the file, set executable, run the appimage, and tada! Subsurface is running on OpenSuse Tumbleweed. Kinda neat!
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,438
I'm not a big fan of containerized apps since that means they're not necessarily optimized for the platform I'm installing them to. My preferred method is compiling anything from AUR & ABS through makepkg on Arch.
I love the AUR myself... snap and app are both up and running in Arch already. The way the packages are handled by the distro can be controlled, as I understand it they can be hooked into the distros repository system... and I could be wrong but I believe the distro installer can make tweaks to specific packages ect.... I know the Arch folks have been closely involved with both efforts. There a pretty solid development for Linux in general I feel. It may help attract many developers that have stayed away from Linux with the excuse that there was to many distros to worry about... and to many support issues with just posting stuff on their own sites. I mean it won't fix all those issues... but it may go a long way if they can get over the multiple repositories / installation hurdles easily at least.
As cool and sometimes handy as it is to compile from the AUR... I don't think its really needed 99% of the time. I honestly can't remember the last time I edited any AUR install scripts. It wouldn't be a large deal in general... and for commercial software publishers the AUR isn't ever going to be an option.
If we are ever going to have a chance of seeing products from companies like Adobe ect Linux needs a proper universal packaging system. I use a handful of commercial Linux software, I am sure these types of packaging options are music to their ears. Its sort of like Linux gaming and Steam... without a universal packaging option like Steam most developers would avoid Linux. Hopefully this leads to more commercial software, in many ways universal packaging is what Linux has needed for mainstream growth.
Last edited:
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
The usage of OSX is literally identical, even terminal commands are the mostly the same. I am well aware of the fact OSX is loosely based on free BSD, both OSX and Linux are essentially Unix like operating systems with OSX possibly being classed as a Unix derivative, although I'm not too sure how much of that exists these days.
If you want to somehow get some form of superiority points, good job, next time I'll be sure to cover all bases just in case someone assumes my level of knowledge.
Another assumption?! I used Vanilla Ubuntu, out of all the Ubuntu derivatives Vanilla Ubuntu gave me the most issues, I worked through them and sorted them out. The issues were fairly minor, but I have had essentially trouble free experiences with other Ubuntu derivatives and therefore recommend them over Vanilla Ubuntu.
Is that ok?
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
Personally this is yet another possible scenario that I have never experienced, not saying you're in any way incorrect in what you're claiming - But I have never had this issue and I've added a metric ton of PPA's, both third party and Ubuntu.
Sometimes the repository keys need updating, but that's basically the extent of my PPA/dependency issues.
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,438
That's true. I think that it may be the proper vehicle for people who are used to the one sized app fits all Windows versions. A containerized Linux app installer for all Linux distros would be an absolute great way to bring more people to a proper comfort level with Linux in general.
Conflicting PPAs plus manually compiled apps can really jack up an installation quick. Being careful sure does help but I've gone too many times down a rabbit hole with Ubuntu & never come out the same thanks to dependency conflicts (or missing ones altogether). I've been a bit adventurous with it, which is why I'm not fond of using PPAs.
HeavensCloud
Oswego, not shitty as Buffalo
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,674
That is why I stick to Windows. Between working 12's four days a week and my three kids to wrangle I don't want to spend my free time figuring out how to use my computer. Windows just works no matter what I want to do on it at any given moment.
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
Fair enough, personally my PPA experience has been trouble free, but your claims are definately something to look out for.
Compiling software defiantly allows for better OS optimisation, but considering the minuscule differences I rarely do it these days - Perhaps I'm getting lazier?! However, anyone considering switching needs to know that PPA issues aren't necessarily commonplace and you can run Linux nowadays without the need to compile anything.
I do know exactly what your saying. Its mainly why I run Arch or Arch based distros these days on all my own stuff. I know the more mainstream Linux tends to get the more of this stuff is going to have to get solved. I wish I knew more about exactly how these packages hook into the repositories... I do agree with you, the entire idea could turn Linux into the same cluster F that is windows software land. Only in this case your giving the masses access to a package that can hook directly into peoples updating system. Hopefully its all well thought out. To be honest I need to do some more reading on these things, all I know is the broad strokes right now.
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
Really?! I rectify an outlandish number of Windows issues every day. But if Windows works for you that's all that matters at the end of the day - Enjoy my friend!
HeavensCloud
Oswego, not shitty as Buffalo
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,674
On your personal machines?
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
I don't use my own Windows machine enough to really have any issues, having said that the HTPC is based on Windows and my daughters NUC is based on Windows as well as the server and they all run fine.
No, as a tech all I do all day is rectify Windows (occasionally OSX) related issues on Mum (Mom?) and Dad, Grandma and Grandpa type machines - Usually all as a result of malware, I have no idea how these bugs manage to get through, i think it's usually the Flash based games all the parents/oldies like playing?
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,438
Yes, my PPA experience is not the normal, so it should be a cautious tale for people getting giddy about adding a ton of PPAs that may or may not compliment each other properly. Also, I've had the best experience with compiling on Arch Linux out of any other distro. Manually compiling isn't something I find enjoyable though (make/cmake vs using pacaur or another AUR frontend client)
Looks like there's some good source material with some of the containerized app platforms on Arch (can't find a wiki page for appimage though)
Snapd - ArchWiki
Flatpak - ArchWiki
Linux is no harder to figure out then Windows is. Of course like most people it sounds like you have years of experience using windows.
Doesn't sound like anyone can blame you for not taking up a new system to learn, you sound busy.
If your into computers though messing around with Linux on a spare system in your free time can be fun... and if its a system you don't care about. Install and wipe a bunch of distros to see how they work... of course perhaps my idea of fun is very different then yours. lol
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,438
Heh, I find tinkering with OSes fun but I've learned that most IT people don't care to do much of it outside of their jobs or after they've completed their PC builds. Linux is something that one must be willing to burn some time & frustration on if all doesn't go well. Even if it does go well, the depth of it can be overwhelming if you aren't willing to do so.
Snaps I think are getting most of the attention as the Ubuntu solution. The arch implementation so far seems to try and wall it a bit with Apparmor, I honestly haven't dealt with it much but looks like its the same idea as SELinux which does a nice job of walling stuff up with RHEL. This arch setup seems more like its treating it like a walled system more then a fully integrated one. Unless I am reading this wrong #snap refresh... doesn't seem a bad solution, just not as integrated as I was thinking unless they are planning to expand on the idea. I guess arch isn't likely to be the distro for the masses any time soon anyway... so perhaps a walled version is perfect for arch anyway.
If this works the same way on other distros where they wall it off... I could see security issues for people that don't have things like Apparmor and other security modules setup properly.
Have to find more info I guess... I can see why there are so many competing ideas now though, trying to find one solution that will work and be secure with every distro is going to be hard.
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
While I admit I don't really use Snaps as much as I should, I have to say I believe Snaps is a great idea in encouraging developers to code for Linux.
Everything is so self contained, right down to it's own snaps partition, that there quite possibly could be a security benefit to the implementation of snaps also?
Everything is so self contained, right down to it's own snaps partition, that there quite possibly could be a security benefit to the implementation of snaps also?
From what I am reading so far, I would agree... it could be very good all around for security. I think it will come down to how well the distro implements things.
I think its still a bit new... and the possible holes will get closed up.
I just read this while reading about Fedoras Snapcore;
"Important: on Fedora 24 you currently have to switch SELinux to permissive mode. This restriction will be lifted later. Please edit/etc/selinux/config and change the file to contain SELINUX=permissive. After this change you have to reboot your system."
I imagine for newer distros using newer versions of the kernel ect things will be included in the base system and not require people to shut off security modules to install snap core. The base install for Arch right now it seems installs with "-disable-apparmor" as well.
Its not like this is the worst possible issue in the world honestly those are hardly the only things securing the base systems or something... I imagine this is one area they are working on improving.
michalrz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,337
You can't do that on any other platform!
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
Yeah baby!
Moo!
Moo!
D
Deleted member 245375
Guest
You can't do that on any other platform!
There's an implication there that someone would want to do such a thing which is somewhat outta left field I suppose. And I could whip up a batch file in about 5 seconds to do it but, alas, I do have better things to do with my time.
Also: isn't that Windows with a root shell into an Ubuntu machine?
michalrz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,337
There's an implication there that someone would want to do such a thing which is somewhat outta left field I suppose. And I could whip up a batch file in about 5 seconds to do it but, alas, I do have better things to do with my time.
Also: isn't that Windows with a root shell into an Ubuntu machine?
It was an attempt at defusing the tensions that this thread seems to produce regarding OS choice. I'm sort of the last person to do what you're implying
Yes, I'm rocking Windows at work and at home for the desktops. For myself it does not matter much. Right now it's Vista, in 2 hours it might be XP for all I know.
However the server above is 'for real' - in this case Ubuntuserver running as an KVM host. It can be managed by a GUI similar to that of VMware player and similar suites.It's a godsend to me.
I employ a lot of stuff for work that would cost too much if I went the commercial Linux or Windows route.
However I am going to perform an experiment at work and switch 2-3 volunteers. I have time till 7's EOL to prepare an alternative. I might need one.
There's an implication there that someone would want to do such a thing which is somewhat outta left field I suppose. And I could whip up a batch file in about 5 seconds to do it but, alas, I do have better things to do with my time.
Also: isn't that Windows with a root shell into an Ubuntu machine?
Perhaps its running in an Ubuntu terminal running on a virtual copy of windows 10 running on a Red Hat Server ?
$ telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl
Ok you can do that in windows as well... lol still.