Newbie
in [UK Linux]
|
From: jasee on 3 Aug 2010 00:54 zed wrote: > Chris Whelan <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:14:48 +0100, Stuart wrote: >> >>> Just wanted to introduce myself >>> >>> http://www.torrens.org.uk/ZFC/gallery/winsor.html >>> >>> I'm a long time user of RISC OS and an occasional user of windows >>> (Only when necessary). I've been fancying a play with Linux for a >>> while but I would rate my computer competence as low. >>> >>> I was recently given an old PC with a 2.5G P4 running W98. As I >>> have no other use for it, I decided to give Linux a go. >>> >>> Advice I have been given so far seems to point to Ubuntu so I will >>> download and have a go in the next couple of days, as time permits. >>> (bit short of the latter) >> >> You are likely to get as many replies as there are distros! >> >> I test all the mainstream ones as they are released. In your >> position, I would think that Ubuntu was indeed a good place to >> start. However, I would recommend that you at least have a look at >> Linux Mint first. (It's one of many Ubuntu-based distros.) IMHO, it >> has a much nicer look and feel. >> >> Disclaimer: it's not my regular distro. > > I agree with Chris. After going through openSUSE, Puppy, Fedora, > Ubuntu, and a host of others, I finally found LinuxMint. It is what > Ubuntu should be. No disclaimer, as it has been my distrubution of > choice for the last three + years - and it just gets better. I am less than impressed when I hear it comes with 'a number of different editions' (I see at least four) and 'a huge collection of packages and software', isn't this all likely to confuse and put off a 'newbie'?
From: zed on 3 Aug 2010 03:01 "jasee" <jasee(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > zed wrote: > > Chris Whelan <cawhelan(a)prejudicentlworld.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:14:48 +0100, Stuart wrote: > >> > > > > Just wanted to introduce myself > >>> > > > > http://www.torrens.org.uk/ZFC/gallery/winsor.html > >>> > > > > I'm a long time user of RISC OS and an occasional user of windows > > > > (Only when necessary). I've been fancying a play with Linux for a > > > > while but I would rate my computer competence as low. > >>> > > > > I was recently given an old PC with a 2.5G P4 running W98. As I have > > > > no other use for it, I decided to give Linux a go. > >>> > > > > Advice I have been given so far seems to point to Ubuntu so I will > > > > download and have a go in the next couple of days, as time permits. > > > > (bit short of the latter) > >> > > > You are likely to get as many replies as there are distros! > >> > > > I test all the mainstream ones as they are released. In your position, > > > I would think that Ubuntu was indeed a good place to start. However, I > > > would recommend that you at least have a look at Linux Mint first. > > > (It's one of many Ubuntu-based distros.) IMHO, it has a much nicer > > > look and feel. > >> > > > Disclaimer: it's not my regular distro. > > > > I agree with Chris. After going through openSUSE, Puppy, Fedora, > > Ubuntu, and a host of others, I finally found LinuxMint. It is what > > Ubuntu should be. No disclaimer, as it has been my distrubution of > > choice for the last three + years - and it just gets better. > > I am less than impressed when I hear it comes with 'a number of different > editions' (I see at least four) and 'a huge collection of packages and > software', isn't this all likely to confuse and put off a 'newbie'? Not exactly! The main thrust is for the Gnome desktop. The others (KDE.LXDE. XFCE and FlurBox) are Community editins and are realised some one or two months after the main one. One advantage for the delay is that the developers rigoursly check the community editions to ensure that they "work out of the box". The basic packages installed are quite adequate for the average user. Zed -- zed 'Thief' is SO ugly. I prefer 'Creative Aquisition Specialist.'
From: chris on 3 Aug 2010 03:58 On 02/08/10 18:14, Stuart wrote: > Just wanted to introduce myself > > http://www.torrens.org.uk/ZFC/gallery/winsor.html > > I'm a long time user of RISC OS and an occasional user of windows (Only > when necessary). I've been fancying a play with Linux for a while but I > would rate my computer competence as low. > > I was recently given an old PC with a 2.5G P4 running W98. As I have no > other use for it, I decided to give Linux a go. > > Advice I have been given so far seems to point to Ubuntu so I will > download and have a go in the next couple of days, as time permits. (bit > short of the latter) You don't mention how much RAM your PC has. That's often more important than the CPU. I don't use Ubuntu either, but I believe it has a minimum RAM requirement of 512MB of RAM. That's quite a lot for a machine of that era, so if you have less I'd try more lightweight distros such as Xubuntu, Puppy or AntiX. I'd advocate AntiX as it's based on Mepis (which I use) and both are designed to be easy to use on older hardware with AntiX being more frugal. I've had Mepis 8 running with 384Mb RAM and AntiX has lower needs than that. Welcome to Linux!
From: Chris Whelan on 3 Aug 2010 04:50 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 05:54:14 +0100, jasee wrote: [...] > I am less than impressed when I hear it comes with 'a number of > different editions' (I see at least four) and 'a huge collection of > packages and software', isn't this all likely to confuse and put off a > 'newbie'? The different editions are essentially just different desktops to cater for both user preference, and for those with older hardware. In point of fact, many mainstream distros do this; look how many official and semi-official variants there are of Ubuntu! For those distros that only come in one "flavour", it is usually trivially easy to add more desktops, and even choose between them each time you boot. WRT software, each distro starts out with what the maintainer feels is right for the target user. Every modern distro has an easily understood graphical means of adding and removing from the list. Ubuntu (and hence Mint) have one of the best for a beginner. Essentially, as a newcomer, you can comfortably ignore both "issues". Pick a mainstream one that you think might suit, run it as a Live CD for a while, and if you like it, install it. The most it will cost you is a blank CD, and if your hardware supports it you can boot most distros from a USB drive now, avoiding even the CD costs! If you are at the very foot of the Linux learning curve, things will seem a bit different. Most distros have easily understood "get started" guides on line, and many Linux users are glad to help. Installing Linux may at first seem confusing, but after the first time you will wonder why MS make it so hard! Even on older hardware, it shouldn't take much more than 20 minutes to get up and running. Compare that to a Windows install! Remember that you will already have many things included that would have to be done later with other OSes. Your P4 machine will be adequate to run Linux on; note that if you want to try a live CD, most distros need you to have at least 512MB of RAM. You can install with less however. Please feel free to ask away as you need; I'm no expert, but I was in the same position as you five years ago, and tried Linux out just as something to do. Within a year or so I decided that for everyday tasks I would never consider using Windows again. Chris -- Remove prejudice to reply.
From: Tony van der Hoff on 3 Aug 2010 07:33
On 03/08/10 11:06, Chris Whelan wrote: > I tend to think of Gnome as being easier than KDE for a beginner to get > to grips with; I second your opinion of AntiX WRT ancient HW; I had it > running on a P3, and it really flew. > If the OP is coming from RISC OS, then I think KDE will appear more familiar. -- Tony van der Hoff | mailto:tony(a)vanderhoff.org Ariège, France | |