Hi ya all!!!

I'd like to install linux for the first time!

Which one to take? What to be careful about?
What about hardware support? What about the software that comes with the
distribution?

Tnx!

Marlock wrote:

> Hi ya all!!!
>
> I'd like to install linux for the first time!

Congratulations! :p

> Which one to take?

http://www.distrowatch.com

.... is a good place to start... ;-)

> What to be careful about?

First and foremost, you need to be careful about realizing that you'd no
longer be working on Windows. Not that GNU/Linux is so user-unfriendly -
it isn't, it just wants the user to be a little more computer-friendly :-)
- but most people coming from the Windows world tend to take certain things
about computers for granted that really only apply to Windows, such as the
frequent reboots, the need for frequent filesystem defragmentation, running
everything with system administrator privileges, etc.

GNU/Linux is a de facto UNIX system. It's multi-user, multi-tasking,
secure, robust, scalable, flexible, portable, transparently configurable
and very powerful.

I recommend that you would buy a shrinkwrapped, boxed GNU/Linux distribution
- I would by the same token also recommend the Mandriva PowerPack - since
it's your first time on the block.

The benefit of purchasing such a shrinkwrapped box is that you get a printed
manual, limited support via fax, e-mail or phone, and all the proprietary
software extensions that might be free of charge but still may not be
distributed with the freely downloadable distributions because of their
licenses, e.g. proprietary nVidia drivers, Adobe Flashplayer and plugins,
Sun's Java Runtime Environment. With a freely downloadable distribution,
you would have to download and install those tools yourself.

If however you decide to download a distribution and burn the CDs or DVDs
yourself, then you should make sure that you check the /md5sums/
or /sha1sums/ on the downloaded /.iso/ files before burning them to CD/DVD
media, and that you use quality media and a low burning speed.

> What about hardware support?

Wireless ethernet is problematic with a lot of chipsets. Anything with an
Orinoco or Atheros chipset will work. Winmodems - i.e. most PCI modems -
won't work, except for a few models. These devices are not real modems;
they have all the modem work done via software and simply offer a connector
for a phone cable. Avoid those.

Just about everything else is supported in a recent distribution. Linux is
the only kernel that runs on just about every CPU platform in existence,
from IBM mainframes and supercomputers over renderfarms down to
wristwatches, satnav systems and smartphones.

Any standard hardware will work. Any "designed for Windows XP/designed for
Vista" stuff is to be mistrusted, because nowadays hardware vendors are
building their hardware around the software instead of the other way
around, as it should be.

Either way, GNU/Linux supports more hardware out-of-the-box than Windows
does, and all available approved and GPL'ed driver modules will installed
on your hard disk, so there is no juggling with driver disks afterwards if
you plan on adding new hardware or changing something.

> What about the software that comes with the distribution?

Freely downloadable distributions come with a fairly complete load of
software for an average desktop experience and loads of different software
that does the same thing. Commercially sold distributions come with the
proprietary drivers needed to get the most out of your nVidia card, all the
right browser en mediaplayer plug-ins, etc.

I would definitely not recommend Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu/Edubuntu for a first
distribution, because although you can technically install whatever you
want on those distros, in their base form, they only support one desktop
environment.

So for instance, Kubuntu is the Ubuntu distribution with KDE as the desktop
environment, and will - alongside the normal commandline utilities - only
come with software that makes use of the Qt widgetset and runs fully
integrated with KDE. Likewise, Ubuntu itself uses Gnome as the desktop
environment and will only come with graphical applications that use the GTK
widgetset and are integrated within Gnome.

However, it is perfectly possible to run KDE applications inside Gnome or to
run Gnome applications inside KDE, as long as you have the base libraries
of "the other" environment installed. This is something Ubuntu/Kubuntu
does not offer you by default, so you would need to download and install
those packages yourself.

A distribution like PCLinuxOS or Mandriva on the other hand goes out of its
way to integrate the various applications very well, regardless of what
desktop environment you're going to use. It'll just install them both -
along with some other desktop environments, if that is what you've marked
during installation - and allows you to choose what you will be using. As
such, different users of the same machine could each run a different
desktop environment and still have all the applications they need.

Lastly some technical advice...:

(1) GNU/Linux requires a bootloader. If you're going to be using Windows
alongside GNU/Linux, install Windows first, and then GNU/Linux, and tell it
to put the bootloader in the master boot record. You will then get the
option of booting either Windows or GNU/Linux.

(2) You will need enough diskspace for at least two partitions for
GNU/Linux, i.e. one for the system itself - we call this the root
filesystem - and one for swap. The Linux kernel uses a dedicated swap
partition, which is not formatted like regular partitions, and which should
be about 1-2 GB in size max, depending on how much RAM you have in your
machine.

It may also be advisable to create a third partition for your personal
configuration files and your daily work. GNU/Linux does not use drive
letters, it uses /mountpoints,/ i.e. a directory - Windows users
erroneously call those "folders" - onto which another filesystem is
mounted. As such, with an additional partition for */home,* the contents
of your home directory - e.g. */home/marlock* - would not be sitting on
your root filesystem, and thus they would be safe from an eventual reformat
if you want to install a newer or different distribution, and in turn they
cannot foul up the filesystem of your operating system itself.

(3) GNU/Linux is case-sensitive. The file /letter.txt/ is not the same
thing as /Letter.txt/ or /LETTER.TXT./ They can all exist side by side in
the same directory.

(4) Reboots are seldom required. GNU/Linux is a layered operating system.
The GUI (graphical user interface) is just another layer on top of the
operating system and is not even mandatory, very much akin to how Windows
3.x ran on top of MS-DOS. Most graphical utilities are in fact only GUI
frontends to commandline utilities.

(5) The root user is the equivalent of the Administrator in Windows.
However, unlike in Windows, the idea is that you do all your normal, daily
work from within an unprivileged user account. Only use the root account
for system maintenance tasks. The root user has all access rights to the
machine and can easily damage the system if you're not being careful.

(6) Unless you're on a high-profile internet connection, there is little or
no need to run a firewall. In Windows, firewalling is handled by a user
program, and Windows tends to be rather promiscuous by default in terms of
connections. In GNU/Linux, the firewalling is handled by the Linux kernel
directly, and unless you specifically have some service listening on a
certain port, that port will not be available to the outside world.

(7) There is no need for anti-virus software in GNU/Linux. Such software
does exist, but it only scans for _Windows_ viruses, e.g. if your GNU/Linux
machine is a mailserver for Windows client machines, or if you have a
dual-boot machine with Windows and GNU/Linux and you want to scan your
Windows partition(s) for viruses from within GNU/Linux.

Likewise, there is no need for anti-spyware in GNU/Linux, if that even
exists. GNU/Linux works entirely differently from Windows and being a de
facto UNIX, it was designed from the ground up with security and stability
in mind, unlike Windows, which is rather like the proverbial chick who'll
sleep with anyone just because she's afraid of becoming an old maid if she
doesn't. :p

(8) You may want to bookmark the following URLs...:

http://www.linuxnewbies.org

http://www.tldp.org (The Linux Documentation Project)

(9) Don't fear the Penguin! While every desktop-oriented distribution comes
with a nice graphical user interface - which as I've explained basically
runs as an application on top of the system - the commandline is a very
powerful tool and may get certain tasks done a lot faster than if you were
to do the equivalent operations via a set of "point & click" operations in
a GUI. ;-)

That all said, have fun, and welcome to the club!

--
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

"Aragorn"

THANK YOU!!!!

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:05:13 +0200, Marlock wrote:

> Hi ya all!!!
>
> I'd like to install linux for the first time!
>
> Which one to take? What to be careful about? What about hardware
> support? What about the software that comes with the distribution?
>
> Tnx!

Desktop systems are very compatible, laptops can have problems with WiFi
if you have the wrong brand of WiFi chip, Intel always works so if you
have a choice that's what to get.

Ubuntu is probably the best choice for you, it's very Windows like (which
is one of the things that I hate about it, but you'll probably see that
as a feature). I personally prefer Fedora but I don't think it's
appropriate for a beginner because it's not as stable as Ubuntu because
it's a permanent beta.

All major Linux distros come with more software than you can imagine, is
there some kind of application that you are looking for? BTW if there is
something that's only available for Windows the solution is to run a
Windows virtual machine on top of Linux. VMware Server is free and easily
installed. VirtualBox and Xen are also available and easily installed.

General Schvantzkopf wrote:

> [...] BTW if there is something that's only available for Windows the
> solution is to run a Windows virtual machine on top of Linux.

Another approach would be to use /wine,/ which works for a lot of "simple"
Windows programs, or any of its variants such as Cedega - which is intended
for playing Windows games on GNU/Linux - or Crossover Office, which is
intended to make use of MS-Office on GNU/Linux, for those who want it -
you'd be better off using OpenOffice, though. ;-)

> VMware Server is free and easily installed. VirtualBox and Xen are also
> available and easily installed.

I have no experience with VMware, nor with VirtualBox. On account of Xen
however, if you want to use Xen to run a virtual Windows machine, you'll
need to have hardware virtualization support.

Without hardware that supports virtualization, you can only use
paravirtualization on Xen, which requires the kernel of the "guest"
operating system to be ported to paravirtualization technology, and this is
currently only available in GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. (I
don't know about DragonflyBSD or PCBSD.)

Xen currently also only supports either GNU/Linux or NetBSD as the "host"
operating system. The namesakes "host" and "guest" are in fact incorrect
with Xen, since Xen is only a hypervisor and runs various operating systems
simultaneously in virtual machines.

In a Xen set-up, the "host" is the virtual machine that offers hardware
access to the "guests" and has full access to their memory. Therefore,
with Xen, we normally speak of privileged and unprivileged virtual
machines. The privileged virtual machine is called "domain 0" or "dom0",
and the unprivileged virtual machines are called "domain U" or "domU". As
such, we also speak of a "driver domain" or "management domain" when
referring to "domain 0".

--
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

General Schvantzkopf wrote:
> Ubuntu is probably the best choice for you, it's very Windows like (which
> is one of the things that I hate about it, but you'll probably see that
> as a feature). I personally prefer Fedora

I probably shouldn't bother, but I am curious. What the hell is really
the difference between Ubuntu and Fedora with Gnome? To a newbie, they'd
appear to look and work almost exactly the same. And yes, Ubuntu
slightly easier to install restricted codecs, etc. But Windows-like?
Surely you're joking.

--
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously.
--Benjamin Franklin

johnny bobby bee wrote:

> I probably shouldn't bother, but I am curious. What the hell is really
> the difference between Ubuntu and Fedora with Gnome? To a newbie, they'd
> appear to look and work almost exactly the same.

Desktop-wise, there shouldn't be much difference, but AFAIK the various
configuration files are slightly different and I would also expect any
Graphical UI to them to be different, too.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:40:45 +0000, johnny bobby bee wrote:

> General Schvantzkopf wrote:
>> Ubuntu is probably the best choice for you, it's very Windows like
>> (which is one of the things that I hate about it, but you'll probably
>> see that as a feature). I personally prefer Fedora
>
> I probably shouldn't bother, but I am curious. What the hell is really
> the difference between Ubuntu and Fedora with Gnome? To a newbie, they'd
> appear to look and work almost exactly the same. And yes, Ubuntu
> slightly easier to install restricted codecs, etc. But Windows-like?
> Surely you're joking.

Linux components are constantly being improved, the kernel has major
releases every few months and bug fix releases every few weeks. Gnome and
KDE have major releases twice a year and bug fixes between those. This is
true for everything in Linux. So one of the major differentiators between
distros is where do they drive the stake in the ground with respect to
all of these components. Redhat has distros at both ends of the spectrum.
Their bread and butter product, RHEL uses very old versions of everything
while everything in Fedora is still warm from the oven. As a result RHEL
is very stable but it's missing all of the latest features. Fedora has
everything you want but at the expense of reliability. Ubuntu runs a
little behind Fedora so it has most of the latest features but it's also
a little more stable.

Another differentiator is the available themes. Gnome and KDE are
customizable so the distros build themes which alter the looks of Gnome
and KDE. These are purely cosmetic, the underlying functionality is the
same and you can easily change the theme yourself. However the default
theme is what you'll see on a fresh install so it's your first impression
of the distro. In my opinion Ubuntu's turd brown theme is hideous and
Fedora's is very pleasant. However beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

A major differentiator is the package manager which is how Linux distros
install and update software. There are two major systems, Redhat Package
Manager (RPM) and Debian's (DEB). Fedora uses RPM and Ubuntu uses DEB.
Ubuntu's handling of packages is significantly better than Fedora's. I'm
not sure how much of this is due to the underlying technology and how
much is due to the diligence of the repository maintainers. Updates on
Ubuntu just work, in Fedora it's hit or miss. Every few weeks there will
be an update on Fedora that doesn't work because of dependency problem.
Experienced users can get around this by uninstalling and reinstalling
the offending packages but it's a pain. My suspicion is that Fedora's
maintainers are cavalier about adding untested packages to the
repository. I've never seen a problem with CentOS (which is the free
version of RHEL) which is why I think the problem is due to people rather
than to the RPM system. Never the less I can't imagine a better way to
turn someone off to Linux then to have an update break his system, that's
why I'm recommending Ubuntu to new user rather than Fedora even though I
personally like Fedora a whole lot better than Ubuntu.

Another way that distros are different is the GUI configuration tools. I
like Fedoras better than Ubuntu's. However the tool that I mostly use is
webmin, http://www.webmin.com. Webmin is a browser based configuration
tool. It's light years ahead of anything that the distros provide and
best of all it works on almost every Linux and Unix distro so you can use
the same tool even if you switch distros or if you are running different
distros on different machines. Also because it's browser based you can
admin your machines from any system on your network.

General Schvantzkopf wrote:
> Linux components are constantly being improved

<snip lots of great info>

I appreciate all that, I really do, but I was just curious how you could
actually say Ubuntu was Windows-like? Especially if you're using Gnome
on both Fedora and Ubuntu? Cosmetically, they'd look identical to a
newbie. And if you thought Ubuntu was Windows-like, then surely, Fedora
would be Windows-like.

I've heard say Ubuntu, and thus Gnome, was very Mac-like, but never
once, Windows-like.

--
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously.
--Benjamin Franklin

General Schvantzkopf wrote:
> However the tool that I mostly use is
> webmin, http://www.webmin.com.

I'm quite surprised at your endorsement of webmin. Isn't it taken out of
Debian and Ubuntu repos due to security issues?

--
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously.
--Benjamin Franklin