I bean Away from the forums for a bit, But when I was here not much people knew what Linux was.
Now that the time has changed and passed, I was wondering where you Guys at?

I think everyone who is likely to be in this section will say yes, I mean even I know what it is . (And have used it)

My middle school used it instead of Windows, so yeah. Except even then, it was still pretty darn slow.

I still don't see why people use Linux. I don't see any advantages, really. Less application compitability, etc. Windows works perfectly fine.

If I had a netbook, maybe I'd use Linux.

Of course. I prefer Linux Mint though. I gave my Ubuntu discs to a friend and i doubt i'll see them again so you know...

Still, Linux < Windows in all but Gaming. As long as you plan ahead with your hardware choices it's so much better. No viruses, far more efficient and well coded... not to mention a better philosophy.

I'm pretty sure Linux < Windows in gaming, also.


And yes, I've heard of Ubuntu.

Oh let's think: better security, most distros are free, very customizable, open source so bugs are fixed very quickly and you can create your own distro if you have the coding ability, large amount of free, safe open-source software easily downloaded and installed through the package manager, and a huge amount of choice because of the number of distros available; those are just some of the advantages. It certainly isn't the best choice for gamers or inexperienced users, but for experienced users it is a very capable OS.

I myself have used many different distros of Linux, including Ubuntu, although my preferred distros are Fedora and (like Caboose) Linux Mint.

Except Ubuntu has some awful driver support.

Yes, drivers are often a problem because most Windows drivers are closed-source and the majority of hardware manufacturers aren't willing to produce Linux drivers. That's why it's not really suited to inexperienced users, as if they don't know what a driver is they haven't got much hope of installing one

I'm lucky I even got full resolution off 1280x800. The intel gma has no driver support.

Meh, it depends with what games. A lot of them don't work... there's Wine and Cegeda, and others but it's better just to stick to Windows for such things. Especially stuff like H2V which as the name suggests only works with Vista.

As for driver support, more and more people are actually making Linux drivers. Maybe because of Google's recent announcement... but no, if you're buying a new PC and putting together the build and you know you want to use Linux, now is your que to make sure it's all compatible. Should make the whole experience a lot more enjoyable, rather than running around after non existent drivers and trying to get your head around Wine.

I agree here. There's not a lot that Linux has to offer that Windows doesn't have that's just as good or better. Plus since Microsoft has a much larger presence in the software market, you don't have to do nearly as much searching for a compatible copy.

http://www.foogazi.com/2007/09/27/5-reason...ould-use-linux/
http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000117

Meh, good reasons are found in those two links, but I personally would still use Windows.

Actually most major distros have large repositories of free, open source software that is easily downloaded and installed through a package manager. Even though there isn't as much software available as for Windows because there is a smaller user base, the majority of it is very good quality. Most distros come with all the software most people need anyway, such as a browser, file manager, image editor and office suite. There's also some very interesting hobbyist apps for things like astronomy. In addition, there are video and audio editing apps that are of a good enough standard to be used professionally in the film and music industry.

And Linux has numerous advantages over Windows. For example, most distros are more secure, and there is less malware written for Linux anyway because of its smaller user base. The whole philosophy of Linux is also more positive, which appeals to some people - the idea of a free operating system available to all, with freely available code so you can write your own distro should you wish, and also examine how the OS works. Because the code is open source, more distros are created, which means more choice, so even if you don't have the knowledge to write your own distro, there is a good chance you will find something that meets your needs perfectly. For older computers and netbooks, there are some distros that are much less resource-intensive and more suitable for small screens than any version of Windows. Because it's open source, bugs are found and fixed faster. Major distros such as Ubuntu have new releases much more often that Windows (every six months in the case of Ubuntu), which means new features, ideas and technologies are added much faster. There's just a few advantages.

I think the real question here is if anybody has ever heard of Crunchbang

I have Never used it though.

I think the REAL REAL question is why aren't you defending Linux alongside me like the devout Linux supporter you are?

Because these people are obviously ignorant of any facts in the matter and have no intention of learning them, so i don't deem them worthy of my time

Seriously though, i'm having a hard time choosing which distro's to use. I think three is a good number, so one lightweight, one performance and one in between. I'm thinking DSL, Linux Mint and Crunchbang, but there are so many. Also, Mint and Crunchbang are both based on Ubuntu, so they might perform similarly, although Crunchbang uses the smallest installer...

ANYONE is a potential Linux convert, they just need plenty of time and a good dose of brainwashing

I'd cut out DSL IMO. On any computer made in the last five years or so, Linux Mint and Crunchbang will be fine, DSL is overkill really.

And I agree that although the number of distros ensures plenty of choice, it can mean it's hard to make a final decision on a distro. Dual- or tri-booting is probably best if you can't make a decision. Personally, I would tri-boot Fedora, Crunchbang/Linux Mint (depending on what I was planning to use the computer for), and Windows 7. That covers most bases

The thing about DSL is that you don't even have to install it, you can have it and all of it's files on a memory stick. Why Fedora though? It's a long running champion, yes, but i'm sick of that old repetitive white Gnome toolbar bottom and top. Why not Crunchbang and Mint?

Meh, they're both based around Ubuntu, I see little point of having both on the same machine. And don't ask me why I like Fedora, because I couldn't give you a decent reason, I just enjoy the geeky feeling using it gives me

Yes, they definitely don't let me out enough

I'd like to recast my vote as "Yes, I use it"

One's based around the full version and the other is based around the slimline version. I like them both so much :'(

I have heard of Ubuntu, and used it either in part or in whole for some time about a year ago. I've also used a customized version of Knoppix, which I got off a site that I have sadly lost the link to; if anyone knows of what I speak, and has the link I'd be most grateful to have it back.
In addition, I've used BackTrack, if anyone here has heard of it.


You do realize that you can install Ubuntu and (I think) every other distro to a usb stick/external hd and run it from there?

There's no point in putting it on an external HDD, as the transfer speeds are so much slower unless you use eSATA. As for running it from a memory stick, i don't know many that do that. Mainly because a lot of motherboards don't even support it. But no others have the OS, downloads and all of your files on the memory stick.

I kept it on an external for a while because my internal hd was broken; yeah, it's not the best option, but it's liveable.
Most newer motherboards support booting from usb; the last two laptops I've had supported it, although my parent's 5/6 year old desktop doesn't.
DSL has the advantage of being able to fit on a lot of smaller (read: cheaper) devices, seeing as Ubuntu takes up several gigs when installed; it also can be run from within Windows, which is pretty cool.
No, not a huge number of people run linux off a thumb drive; however, it's possible, and is one of the arguments for linux>windows, as windows can't be installed on a portable device without some serious jury-rigging.
And I'm not sure what you're saying with DSL being the only one to have "the OS, downloads and all of your files on the memory stick." If you install Ubuntu to a thumb drive, it'll keep all it's files there too.

EDIT: typos, it's 9 AM here and I'm a bit groggy.

The whole point of DSL is that you can run it on any machine, which is why it doesn't use the latest Kernel. The thing i was arguing was that it would be faster than Debain, by a long shot.