1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Linux users?

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by embellisher, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. phxlbrmpf


    Dec 27, 2002
    Last time I tried that feature, the window rendering was slow and glitchy as hell while Windows has had "true" transparency since Windows 2000, just sayin'. :p

    I remember liking XFCE quite a bit, except for its atrocious file manager. Does anyone know if it has improved?
  2. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    Weird, I've been able to use that on both no problem.
  3. Windows 2000? I don't remember that having transparency...not that I've used it for a few years now.

    Anyway, yes, the composite feature (transparency, etc) has come on a long way. It just makes me laugh that all the 'new' features of vista that I keep seeing screenshots of have already been done on linux and BSD for a while. There is still nothing on windows to rival enlightenment for a clean, awesome window manager. I don't think MacOS even compares, but I'm sure some macheads out there will beg to differ :)
  4. AspiringBassMan


    Dec 10, 2005
    you have what is called False Memory Syndrome :p. transparency is going to be introduced into windows for the first time in the top of the range vista...and vista isn't due until 2007. transparancy was only possible in 2000 as a hack using 3rd party applications.
  5. phxlbrmpf


    Dec 27, 2002
    Ok, I admit that the GUI per se didn't offer transparency, but starting with Windows 2000, it was possible to enable window transparency with third-party applications such as Trillian (multi-protocol IM program) and foobar2k (music player). If you were running them on a version below 2k and tried to enable transparency, the windows would remain solid.

  6. jive1

    jive1 Commercial User

    Jan 16, 2003
    Owner/Retailer: Jive Sound
    I'm running Ubuntu right now, but I'm gonna trash it in favor of a more robust distro. I leaning towards SuSe, Mandriva, CentOS, or Slackware. There's way more distros available when I first dabbled in it.

    I've been dabblin with Linux since RedHat 4.2, and until recently I haven't found many practical distros that didn't take up a world of time to install. Ubuntu is quick and easy to install, and I love the number of live CDs now available that will let me test drive different flavors without going through hours of install. Nowadays I can tinker with Linux and still get a good nights sleep.:D

    My work involves Windows extensively, so moving off of it isn't an option. Although I did ponder seriously about going with Linux for my shop, the lack of software for credit card machines made it not possible. I tinkered with creating one, but the time involved was just too much. If not for the credit card machine, I would be running some flavor of Linux at Jive Sound now.
  7. phxlbrmpf


    Dec 27, 2002
    I tried SuSE after getting annoyed with (K)ubuntu a bit, but it felt worse to me even though its overall look seemed more professional.

    Most multimedia features were disabled out of the box (some multimedia packages had even been replaced by dummy packages) which took quite some work to fix.
    The OS felt pretty slow and my hard drive was being accessed all the time even after disabling some services (I have 768 megs of RAM which SHOULD be enough for a Linux distro). Besides, SUSE's package management system seemed nowhere as easy to use as Ubuntu's apt-get. I then read that someone had managed to put together a port of apt-get for SUSE, which I installed, but I can't really remember if it worked or not.

    On the plus side, I ALMOST managed to get my MIDI keyboard working.

    Oh, yeah, and Japanese input (which is still broken in Ubuntu, as far as I know) worked out of the box, which is another plus, I guess.
  8. I was also unimpressed with SuSE and went directly to Gentoo (which is admittedly not for everybody, but is the ultimate in customizability and I love it!!)...


    If you want a good studio recording suite, I suggest installing the Fedora Core 4 distro and using the Planet CCRMA utilities for musical audio recording and editing.
  9. phxlbrmpf


    Dec 27, 2002
    Do you happen to know what the new version of Gentoo which just came out a while ago is like, xsogol? I read it's fairly easy to install now. How do you install programs in Gentoo? Does it have something similar to apt or is it true that you always have to compile sources?
  10. i have ubuntu running on my compaq laptop...i want to run KDE on it, but it isn't good enough...so i bought a mac...i don't care what you say, i think the OSX window manager is a lot like KDE
  11. 2006.0 is great...I have it installed on two Pentium-based computers at home. If you follow the step by step installation guide on gentoo.org, installation is a snap (I like the option of installing via Knoppix LiveCd so you can surf the internet while your Gentoo OS compiles itself :hyper: ).

    In terms of installing programs....

    Once Gentoo is installed, I find it to be the EASIEST of all the Linux distros to maintain (i.e. install programs).

    You simply go to gentoo-portage.com to search for the program you want (specifically its name in Gentoo...sio if you search for "Firefox", it is listed as "mozilla-firefox" on gentoo-portage.com), then type "emerge mozilla-firefox" at a command prompt and it downloads the program and ALL ASSOCIATED DEPENDENCIES (huge for those of you who have had RPM nightmares with Fedora/Red Hat) and COMPILES THEM ON THE FLY optimized for your specific computer hardware...beautiful design.

    Simply type "emerge sync" at the command line to update your possible library of downloadable/compilable programs in the Portage library. I love it!!! :bassist: :bassist:
  12. I have to say I agree with you on the speed issue - I tried Kubuntu and the SuSE on my Mom's computer and felt both ran very slowly. Eventually I lost patience and put slackware on :) Much faster! (and all multimedia things work out of the box)
  13. phxlbrmpf


    Dec 27, 2002
    Hmm, looks like I gotta try this. I don't really have time for this but the geek inside me is rearing its ugly head. :p

    Just started downloading the Live CD. I assume you meant "Gentoo Live CD" instead of "Knoppix Live CD" in your post?
  14. AspiringBassMan


    Dec 10, 2005
    or he could use lmms (click) if he can put up with the horrible unchangable colour. theres also a complete multimedia studio that runs directly off of a live CD here:

    suse is INCREDIBLY slow. i have it running on my PC and i have found it to be the slowest linux distro of all. apparently, there is now a version called opensuse slick which improves the speed considerably. it seems that yast does a lot in the background to make it slow down.
  15. jive1

    jive1 Commercial User

    Jan 16, 2003
    Owner/Retailer: Jive Sound
    So anyone have any distro they recommend. I'd like a desktop/server system. Flexibility and availability of applications and comonents is key. Also, I need to be able to integrate with Windows. I prefer Gnome over KDE.

    Running Ubuntu right now. Tried Kubuntu, Gentoo and Knoppix, and not for me, although I love Knoppix for diagnostics and recovery.

    I'm considering the following:
    Fedora Core 4
    Free BSD
    Vector Linux

    If anyone has any tips, recommendations, or reviews, I'd appreciate it.
  16. flatwoundfender


    Feb 24, 2005
    What kind of server use, I wouldn't use Ubuntu for any sort of live deployment, but it would be fine for in house testing. I prefer BSD operating systems for server use, but gnome is kind of lacking on BSD(which makes me mad because I prefer it). I don't see any reason not to use Ubuntu for that situation.
  17. Nope...I meant Knoppix LiveCD...there is a section in the Gentoo installation handbook that talks about booting a computer with the Knoppix LiveCD, thus giving you a working graphical operating system (KDE...the Gentoo LiveCD only gives you a command line) that allows multiple windows...


    You can compile your OS in a terminal window, listen to music via XMMS, and browse the web all at the same time rather than sitting in front of a terminal window watching code compile and having a useless box in front of you with text flying up the screen for (possibly) hours on end. ;)
  18. Slackware! Very BSD like, very fast. Packaging system that doesn't get in the way (actually I don't even use it, I compile everything from source code, so you can use any application available for linux). You might need to configure config files, but even the layout of those makes more sense than any other distro.
  19. mdurell


    Mar 9, 2006
    Boulder, CO
    Any distribution will do what you need it to.

    Personally I would recommend using what the Big Boys use to get your chops up to par if you ever decide you want a crack at a pretty good paying career (UNIX SysAdmins worth their salt, and there really aren't that many, command salaries in excess of $70k even with just a few years experience). This would be the Red Hat Enterprise derivitive CentOS. For servers it's quite nice with a good long release cycle (5 years) and is VERY stable. I know that other distributions are "enterprise" quality but the cold hard fact is that Red Hat is the Microsoft of the corporate Linux world.

    The next version of Ubuntu due out soon (but might be delayed 6 weeks) will be the first enterprise-level release (meaning a serious focus on security, stability, and, most importantly, viable long-term supportability) and might be worth a look but... Red Hat rules the roost.

    I would (and do) stick with CentOS as it's the current Top Dog and will probably remain as such for at least the next 3-5 years if not longer.

    I've been at this a LOOONG time and I've seen distribuitions come and go and come back again but Red Hat has been the #1 distribution for a long time for very good reason. CentOS, as you know, is nothing more than a rebranded clone of RHEL compiled from Red Hat's own publicly-available source RPMs.

    I don't care for the "my distribution is better than yours" arguments that have gone around since the SLS vs. Slackware days. And to that point I reiterate that ANY distribution will do what you need.

    Right now I see three interesting distributions on the market:

    If you *REALLY* want to learn a UNIX system from the ground up go with Gentoo... but what a pain in the rear (especially on older hardware). It's really best for n00bs to start on something else first and get used to the shell and doing tasks like compiling first.

    If you want a good desktop distribution that runs well and just doesn't get in the way of getting work done with pretty good updated software go with Ubuntu. This is where other distros can really shine... Play around and stick with what works best for you.

    However, if you want something worthy of enterpise-level server that you just install, configure, and leave running with ludicrious uptime and can go a LOOONG time between upgrades but doesn't require the latest bleeding-edge software... Stick with Red Hat if you use it commercially and might need the support contract or CentOS if you don't need the commercial support (I would feel quite comfortable supporting most commercial accounts running CentOS and a good hardware contract but, I have a LOT of experience supporting UNIX OS's with little or no vendor support).

    Oh, feel free to PM me if you need any assistance.
  20. jive1

    jive1 Commercial User

    Jan 16, 2003
    Owner/Retailer: Jive Sound

    I'm not looking for an enterprise server, but more of development system that I can use to maintain/upgrade my skills. I would like a system that is an intuitive and interesting desktop, but one that I can also install server applications onto and learn. Mainly a web/ftp, file service, SQL, etc....

    Even though I'm mainly a Windows guy, I'm still comfortable with command line interfaces. One of the things that would be nice is a system that has a number of shells that I can use. I'm pretty old school, so T shell and bash are the ones I'm the most familiar with. But as always in the computer world, I'm game to learn the newest latest and greatest. Why work harder when you can work smarter?

    I've been thinking that I would lean toward a Red Hat oriented distro since it is THE most common professional environment. I wish Fedora core had a live distro that I can check out. I am leaning towards CentOS or Fedora Core 4 at the moment.

    Is it hard to make it boot different Distros?
    Maybe use Ubuntu as a desktop OS, CentOS as a Server OS, and then Free BSD for something different?

    By the way, what exactly is BSD (Berkley Software Distribution)? What makes it unique from other flavors of Linux? I've heard people say that it is more UNIX like. But, in what way? Is it a good thing?

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.