Topic: linux-finally had it with microsoft any advice (Read 2018 times)

yeah... so? Note the word "enjoy" in my post. yeah... so? Note I was beating on Ubuntu, not Knoppix. Ubuntu feels like Macintosh meets Vista. *shudder*

Did you know that 8GB is like $40? Seriously I ran linux with a lot less than half of gig, half of meg was fine.

Installing Ubuntu teaches you nothing. Installing Arch teaches you Linux.

Ubuntu has just been too bloated for me lately. Seriously. I enjoy running underpowered systems (think a half gig of RAM) smoother than people run $1000 computers. To do this, I either need XP Pro with everything off, or Arch Linux. Ubuntu actually lags worse than Vista for me with the new Unity desktop.

I'm another Gentoo user.
I really started with FreeBSD. Was given a computer, but couldn't afford a copy of windows. I also had no internet and the only distro disk I could find in the location was a FreeBSD 5 disk set.
Talk about head first in to hell. Though once i got the system working, it was glorious.
Next distro was Gentoo, similar package manager to freeBSD so I was familiar. Gentoo taught me a hell of a lot more, Honestly any person who asks me where to start, I send them to Gentoo, simply because it makes you do most everything without making it exceedingly hard. And then once its up and configured how you want it, its fairly trivial to keep up to date unless you are using ~amd64/~x86 and what not.. (essentially untested versions.) If there is some specific version you need, you can tell gentoo to use that version of it, ignoring the ~ marker on it without exposing your entire system.

Also, configuring your own kernel, while time consuming and extensive... is a useful task to make a smooth system. Not sure why people are concerned about the 'security' of it... just configure it to be secure :p (of course, that requires you have knowledge of what a secure kernel has and doesn't have.)

If that is too much for you, which for example, on my EeePC it would be. (imagine compiling everything on a 900mhz celeron every few weeks?!) There is Sabayon.
Sabayon is to Gentoo, what mint is to Debian.
It has the package manager from Gentoo, though doesn't use it by default, the default is binary packages. They arn't as fast or efficient as if you compiled them specifically for your system... and may not have the useflags you want... but you can always fall back to Gentoo's Package manager if you need a specific variant.

Sabayon is also an OS like ubuntu or Mint that is up and running with very little effort. However, I have had trouble with it in the past getting it installed.. some times the "just works" mentality, just doesn't.

I'm converted to Ubuntu since 1 year. Tails is a nice Tor ready distro.

A good place to get support: http://askubuntu.com/

In the long term, learning how things work does result in a no-hassles, easy to use system.

Ubuntu is your friend!   

LFS is great if you want to learn how things work, but I think he's looking more for a no-hassles, easy to use system.

The best learning experience is to install Linux From Scratch.

Then once you've gotten the hang of LFS and have a decent understanding of how all the parts work together switch to something a little more automated like Gentoo.

I've been using nothing but Linux for many years.  I've tried a bunch of different distributions but usually end up with Ubuntu.  I used Arch for a while and the documentation is great, but there was something about it which I just couldn't live with.  I forget which it was now - maybe it used to freeze every 24 hours or so.  Or maybe the wireless Internet wasn't very reliable on it.  Something like that, which I couldn't find any solution to other than switching to Ubuntu.

Also, when I was using it the packages weren't signed at all.  If the repository I was using was every compromised, Arch would happily download and install trojaned packages.  I read that there were plans to upgrade the package manager to be able to handle signed packages, and to start signing the packages, but don't know if that's standard practice now or not.  That seems like quite an oversight for a serious distribution.

I think most gentoo users are aware of the potential for attacks, it is a true expert distro which I wouldn't recommend to any newcomers.

Arch keeps a mainline kernel and others in its repository and they're regularly updated against known attacks.

Ubuntu has come a long way!

Not using stock kernels == need to update the kernel yourself, opening up yourself to attacks.

Catalyst isn't an open source software, so it's irrelevant.

Sometimes 'security & bug fixes' don't come in a subversion.

For example Catalyst 12.6 fixes a lot, and as far as I know it still isn't in the Ubuntu non-free repository.

Also, most gentoo users don't use distro stock kernels.


This is what [Testing] (Arch Linux) and ~amd64 (Gentoo) are for. Things break in the unstable head so that they don't break on the stable trunk. Nobody's advocating that reg uses [Testing] repos.

To clarify: major releases (feature upgrades) are every 6 months (Ubuntu) or 24 months (Ubuntu LTS), but bugfixes and security updates are released whenever they are needed.


This isn't really a problem for a new user, but it's good to know why the alternatives exist.  Different preferences for tradeoffs like these are why there are so many distributions.


Ubuntu:  "Oh god, I have to schedule a couple hours to upgrade everything and make sure it all works afterward.  This sucks."

Gentoo:  "Oh god, this worked yesterday, why did they have to change it?"

Pick your poison. 

@Luceo:

Ubuntu/Fedora/CentOS get updated daily, dont feed this crap about the security problems. Gentoo is actually more prone to security issues  than others distros:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080218#feature

As you see Fedora was fixed within few hours, Gentoo was the last one.

Welcome to the dark side.

There's basicallywo schools of thought on Linux:

1). These 'user friendly' distributions like Ubuntu, Linux Mint & Fedora,  which use complicated scripts like upstart to seemingly make things simple for you. Generally they work well, but with a few caveats:
- Software isn't up to date (they only upgrade major releases every 6-12 months). This can lead to security issues. Can be bypassed by using 3rd party software repositories but often that leads to getting zero support.
- Often scripts are complex to modify or do anything with, try comparing upstart to systemd, this means that your system will be a lot harder to custom-configure to your own personal requirements.
- The forums/IRC are often full of people with little Linux knowledge because of their draw, which can lead to a very frustrating experience when trying to resolve issues. Don't believe me? Hang out on the Ubuntu Forum for a day and watch how many threads go unanswered.

2). 'Expert' distributions like Arch Linux & Gentoo. These often take some time to configure, but once set up they will keep your software up to date, not require a heart-wrenching 'upgrade' every 6 months and be easy to configure.

I personally recommend Arch Linux to just about anyone (as long as they're willing to learn and read) for these reasons:
- The wiki covers just about everything. Literally.
- The IRC & forums can solve most issues (although they will be annoyed if you keep asking them questions which are answered on the Wiki / forums already).
- The distribution is light-weight & configurable.

If you choose to go with Arch Linux, please read these three documents before inserting installation media:
Arch Compared to Other Distributions - This explains the differences between Arch and distributions like Ubuntu.
Beginner's Guide - This is written for inexperienced users and should help you set up & configure an Arch Linux system.
Xorg Installation Guide - This will get you running a graphical user interface, it's very simple so don't be intimidated by it.

Ultimately, you'll probably hear a lot of people pushing you towards the first group of distros, I'd suggest if you have a couple of days, try both and see what you like. The advantages are as follows:

Ubuntu/Fedora/Mint:
- Set up & go: No complex installation process, GUI from the get-go.
- Easy to use: Designed to act like Windows / Mac OS X and hide the 'hard bits'.

Arch Linux:
- Powerful & cutting-edge: Your software will be the newest versions with the latest features.
- Easy to configure: Whilst it takes a few hours (give yourself 3-4) to set up how you want it, it's far easier than Ubuntu et. al to modify later
- YOURS: Won't come with a bunch of software you don't want, you choose what you need. Minimal memory footprint.

Remember, make your own decision. I've tried both camps. I started with Slackware in 1998, I tried Debian, I tried Ubuntu, I tried Mint. I tried OpenBSD and FreeBSD. I found Arch and have stayed with it for just over 3 years, it's been a learning experience but for the most part my computers run how I want them to: fast, stable and customized to my liking. When they don't, it's because I've changed something wrong, and it's usually trivial to solve it and get them doing so again.

Good luck and hope you like Linux.

many thanks to all for a prompt response. well there is a bit of reading for me to do now. i feel this is the way to go now being so restricted on m/s software. reg

Hello reg,

You may want to start off with a new user friendly distribution of Linux, for example:

http://www.linuxmint.com/
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://fedoraproject.org/

... so that you don't have to worry so much about the command line and updating packages.

Distrowatch has a nice list of many distributions: http://distrowatch.com/


Most of the popular distributions have LiveCDs which allows you to test them out without having to format & install.

For general purpose use: http://www.ubuntu.com/

For an all-TOR, no traces left behind session, this is a useful live CD / USB (no install required): https://tails.boum.org/