I installed Linux Mint Gloria a year ago. 95% of my use is internet. I learned about the Mint distro from a friend. Is there a recommended, haxor light site to stay up on the linux pipeline?
Mint Gloria still works fine for me. Would it be worth the effort to install a different OS?
Linux OS's
I have been on Ubuntu for many years and loved it.. until version 10., have been having tons of problems since.
I also hate Skype for Linux (crashes) and I hate the OpenOffice powerpoint equivalent, it sucks. Also AIR and tweetdeck/twhirl have some weird anomalies in redrawing that make stuff crash.
I also hate Skype for Linux (crashes) and I hate the OpenOffice powerpoint equivalent, it sucks. Also AIR and tweetdeck/twhirl have some weird anomalies in redrawing that make stuff crash.
@dpmorel:
I agree about OpenOffice, but I disagree about skype as it works very well for me.
There were many issues with skype and pulseaudio, maybe you can check the forums.
Also, I noticed that after many Ubuntu operating system upgrades the stability decreased, so every now and then a fresh install is a good way to start with a clean system.
@rePete:
if you're happy with Mint and you know how to use it, don't change... but if you've to change, Ubuntu is the most popular and supported (in forum etc.) distribution.
Ciao
D
I agree about OpenOffice, but I disagree about skype as it works very well for me.
There were many issues with skype and pulseaudio, maybe you can check the forums.
Also, I noticed that after many Ubuntu operating system upgrades the stability decreased, so every now and then a fresh install is a good way to start with a clean system.
@rePete:
if you're happy with Mint and you know how to use it, don't change... but if you've to change, Ubuntu is the most popular and supported (in forum etc.) distribution.
Ciao
D
The Linux desktop is one of the areas where Linux is less mature, but starting to get there. So, what this means in practical terms is that every new version will tend to add new features or stabilize more than a previous version. This is ideally true and so not a guarantee, but does hold some practical truth. I usually suggest Ubuntu as a good distro for someone who wants a desktop but isn't a hard core Linux / *NIX geek.
Actually, it isn't too bad for those who are Linux geeks either, since there is always the command line.
If all you care about is keeping up with new distro releases,
distrowatch.com is great, but if you are interested in Linux as a whole including distro news and updates, check out lwn.net
Also, whatever distro you use will have updates on its home page as well.
lwn.net has a great distributions list under the distributions hyper link that categorizes distros based on what you want out of one and then gives you a little info on each and the URL to the home page for each listed distro
Actually, it isn't too bad for those who are Linux geeks either, since there is always the command line.
If all you care about is keeping up with new distro releases,
distrowatch.com is great, but if you are interested in Linux as a whole including distro news and updates, check out lwn.net
Also, whatever distro you use will have updates on its home page as well.
lwn.net has a great distributions list under the distributions hyper link that categorizes distros based on what you want out of one and then gives you a little info on each and the URL to the home page for each listed distro
I have 3 laptops and they all run Linux now. Fedora 13 for mine and my wife's. Ubuntu Netbook edition for the media center. For the rare times we need to run Windows programs (TaxAct), I have VirtualBox installed to launch Windows in a VM.
It's pretty good nowadays -- I even gave my parents a netbook running Fedora 13 and they have no problems with it. With Skype, they can share their screen for me to walk them through things ... which is almost never after the first 2 weeks.
It's pretty good nowadays -- I even gave my parents a netbook running Fedora 13 and they have no problems with it. With Skype, they can share their screen for me to walk them through things ... which is almost never after the first 2 weeks.
I've been using linux and other unix variants for more than 10 years now. I've learned that my perfect system is usually a blend. So for the past few years I did run Linux Mint but picked up all my packages from the main debian unstable tree in order to get bleeding edge software or compiled things from source. If you enjoy the learning process as much as I do, it won't much of a chore. If you hate tinkering around with computers and fixing them it will not be fun.
I've been using linux exclusively since 97. I started with slackware, then I rolled my own for around 7 years. A few years ago I went back to distros and I have mostly settled on fedora. I also like debian but I have found ubuntu to be unstable on many machines.
As to the ops question, "don't fix it if it's not broken" unless you are like me and enjoy playing with the computer as opposed to using it as a tool.
As to the ops question, "don't fix it if it's not broken" unless you are like me and enjoy playing with the computer as opposed to using it as a tool.
I'm a minimalist. My favourite linux, after trying several others first, is Arch Linux (http://www.archlinux.org).
My desktop: none.
If you want a decent linux that follows the KISS principle, arch linux is very good. You can also use it with KDE or another desktop environment if you want.
But I use a dynamic tiling windowmanager, without all the fancy stuff: dwm (http://dwm.suckless.org).
It's worth looking into...
My desktop: none.
If you want a decent linux that follows the KISS principle, arch linux is very good. You can also use it with KDE or another desktop environment if you want.
But I use a dynamic tiling windowmanager, without all the fancy stuff: dwm (http://dwm.suckless.org).
It's worth looking into...
RePete: Stick with Linux Mint, but upgrade. A good tutorial is here:
http://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/2
How to handle upgrades is a point of contention among Linux developers. All of the major distributions use a release format, whereas a few do rolling releases, where you upgrade every time you bring your system completely up to date, like the aforementioned Arch, but these systems are not "haxor lite," requiring a lot of knowledge to get up to speed on them.
http://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/2
How to handle upgrades is a point of contention among Linux developers. All of the major distributions use a release format, whereas a few do rolling releases, where you upgrade every time you bring your system completely up to date, like the aforementioned Arch, but these systems are not "haxor lite," requiring a lot of knowledge to get up to speed on them.
-
dot_com_vet
- Posts: 603
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:07 am
Yeah, I used to try out new distributions all the same time, and they're more alike than different. You don't really need to switch or upgrade until you have a need for newer software or some other specific feature.
That being said, Debian is the "catholic" option, as it's been around since the start, most other distributions are based upon it, and it's hard to imagine it ever going away. It's a non-hierarchical volunteer organization with strict principles, so it can be frustratingly slow at times, but if you don't care about having the latest software that's a non-issue.
That being said, Debian is the "catholic" option, as it's been around since the start, most other distributions are based upon it, and it's hard to imagine it ever going away. It's a non-hierarchical volunteer organization with strict principles, so it can be frustratingly slow at times, but if you don't care about having the latest software that's a non-issue.
Well there's all of this
http://www.debian.org/misc/children-distros
including Ubuntu and all its derivatives. You know what I mean.
http://www.debian.org/misc/children-distros
including Ubuntu and all its derivatives. You know what I mean.