|
Seun (m)
|
Try running Linux on Vista using Virtualbox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
blackweaver (m)
|
bust vista get 7 instead (especially while it's still free - warning, not on your production server; for that use xp or vista instead)
|
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
sorry to butt in on this veeeerrrry interesting mumbo-jumbo, but as a mugun who has NEVER seen a linux pc before, does it have a user friendly point and click interface like windows or do u need a degree in command typing to use the damn thing. all the times av heard about the thing all i hear are fantastic names and what seems to be programming language! PLS WHAT IS WRONG WITH MACKINTOSH AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WINDOWS??? EH?
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigrovar (m)
|
sorry to butt in on this veeeerrrry interesting mumbo-jumbo, but as a mugun who has NEVER seen a linux pc before, does it have a user friendly point and click interface like windows or do u need a degree in command typing to use the damn thing. all the times av heard about the thing all i hear are fantastic names and what seems to be programming language! PLS WHAT IS WRONG WITH MACKINTOSH AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WINDOWS??? EH?
Let me try and answer your questions the best i can. For me Linux is about what is called free and open source software. when i say free i don't mean free as in price (although most free softwares are also free as in price) the free here refers to freedom to own, distribution, improve the software. Most closed source softwares like windows and Mac among others comes with licenses that makes it illegal to redistribute their software (for example if you buy a copy of windows it is illegal to share it with your friend, or even you wife if you have one) and if you see a fault in the software you are restricted from fixing it. basically ownership of closed source software like windows for example belong to Microsoft, what you have is just the license to use the software. another thing about open source software is that the source code (more like the ingredients and what was used in building the software) is available to the public and if you have the know how you are encouraged to improve the code and even make something better from it as long as you dont keep your improvements secret. you can read more about free and opensource software here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software for me the above is the major difference between linux and windows and Mac , LInux is free and open source , and because of this and the fact that the development process is very open and contributory most linux as OS are known for their stability, flexibility, and power , linux is also very secured and because it was built by millions of hacker to be secured from ground up , hence i have never had 1 virus problem even though i dont use an any virus , i have been running linux exclusively for close to 2 years last time i used an windows computer was a year and half ago , and i don't miss a thing , If you don't have a problem with using windows or things like freedom and open source software dont mean anything to you , then you are just better of with windows , because for me the important thing about linux is not because it is better than windows , but the fact that its a free and open source software In case you want to try linux , were do you start , you can start by installing Linux mint or Ubuntu ( reading about them ) Linux mint can be downloaded here http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php you said you have never seen a Linux OS in action before , well here is one <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/xC5uEe5OzNQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/xC5uEe5OzNQ</a>]]>here is also a screenshot of my compaq mini 700 netbook running ubuntu netbook remix  and my laptop running ubuntu with the kde4 desktop  |
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
well they look nice! i always sort of just thot that the things were like windows 95. not as in looks but i just remember those days you had to learn the exact command to play prince of persia or chess!!!!javascript:void(0); any ways iv spent many years learning my way round windows, the thot of starting the process allover is not appealing. u knw wat, can i install one of them thingys on a p3? i have one i can sacrifice for experimenting, God help me! then av seen this redhat blabla in ikeja with them boys. is that one safe to try and will it be just as fine? at least i an oppress my friend with the stuff?  heh? |
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
well they look nice! i always sort of just thot that the things were like windows 95. not as in looks but i just remember those days you had to learn the exact command to play prince of persia or chess!!!!javascript:void(0); any ways iv spent many years learning my way round windows, the thot of starting the process allover is not appealing. u knw wat, can i install one of them thingys on a p3? i have one i can sacrifice for experimenting, God help me! then av seen this redhat blabla in ikeja with them boys. is that one safe to try and will it be just as fine? at least i an oppress my friend with the stuff? heh? |
|
|
|
|
|
bigrovar (m)
|
well they look nice! i always sort of just thot that the things were like windows 95. not as in looks but i just remember those days you had to learn the exact command to play prince of persia or chess!!!!javascript:void(0); any ways iv spent many years learning my way round windows, the thot of starting the process allover is not appealing. u knw wat, can i install one of them thingys on a p3? i have one i can sacrifice for experimenting, God help me! then av seen this redhat blabla in ikeja with them boys. is that one safe to try and will it be just as fine? at least i an oppress my friend with the stuff? heh? In that case you are better of with windows , if all you care about is a familiar environment and you dont have any problem using your windows as it is , then there is no point moving , the major reason people move to linux is the freedom that is gives the user , ( that is beside the stability, beauty, flexibility and other things that comes with it) |
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
hey u didnt ans any of my questions. i hav an adventurous side too. ok they are- 1. can i do them on an intel based p3, 2. wat is d size of d average install footprint? cause i went googling n i was seeing stuff lyk 2-4 dvds!!? 3. is d installation something i can manage on my own? i knw my way around a pc. 4. i dnt think i can download files of that size n be burning em. i saw retail versions of redhat being sold. 4 cds or more can i use that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigrovar (m)
|
hey u didnt ans any of my questions. i hav an adventurous side too. ok they are- 1. can i do them on an intel based p3, 2. wat is d size of d average install footprint? cause i went googling n i was seeing stuff lyk 2-4 dvds!!? 3. is d installation something i can manage on my own? i knw my way around a pc. 4. i dnt think i can download files of that size n be burning em. i saw retail versions of redhat being sold. 4 cds or more can i use that?
Linux is a platform which many OS are based on hence we have many types of linux all for different type of people. the watch word in linux is choice and freedom. we have systems like ubuntum linux mint, mandriva which are a good starting point for new users due to their ease of use. then we have things like fedora,redhat,centos which are for more experienced users , then we have archlinux, gentoo etc for power users. also when it comes to desktop enviroment (how your desktop is laid out), there are quite a few to choose from: there is the kde desktop enviroment which is quite close to the windows look, and is considered an heavy desktop requiring at least 256mb or ram on a fairly decent processor like P4, then there is gnome which uses the same resources like kde. but has a different feel. for your case you can download xubuntu which is an ubuntu variance of xfce (xfce is a light weight desktop enviroment) the average size of a linux distros like ubuntu, mint and mandriva is 690mb which fits a cd fine. most linux OS comes as live cds which allows you to run the OS on your computer without installing it |
|
|
|
|
|
blackweaver (m)
|
depend, most of the things in the 4cd redhat are things
you'll probably never use
you could try downloading some lightweight linux brands
like slax or puppy linux (i know i make a lot of noise about these distro
but those are the lightweight ones i've used) or damnsmalllinux (DSL) - though
that's not as featured as the oother ones i mentioned;
DSL's about 50-60mb, puppy about 90mb or you can get some of the older ones
which aren't much larger than DSL, Slax is closer 200mb;
all should work on a p3 especially if you have up to 512 mb ram
and can be quite fast too yeah by the way they're all live cds
which means you can use them without installing on your hard disk
about Mac i know there's a project to bring the mac os to the x86
i.e your intel/amd processor pcs i.e. your pentuim/celeron/amd athlon/centrino etc
however i don't know if it can actually be obtained and if so if it's free.
Traditionally the mac os has been tied to hardware released by apple
|
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
hey thanks bro. av spent like 2 hrs on dis subject since googling n all dt. i also sort of figured out dt xubuntu might be my springboard. its just dis download part. i saw something somewhere abt writing 2 folks n dem sending u free copies of linux. fill me in and hook me up. haha, these is beggining to look lyk a new xperience. anyway u guys shld get ready 4 quite a lot of annoyingly inane questions o! afterall na una entice me o!
|
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
ok i spent 4 hrs doing online research n even downloaded a couple of manuals n found out dt it aint bad! but u folks need 2 chill wit all d mumbo jumbo. u can imagine my surprise 2 find dt d cmd were jst quick alternatives at times 2 do stuff u can point n click 2 do!! sudo jst meant admin privilege cmd?!! my point is 4 newbies windows analogies aint a bad idea( cue d purists cry blue murder). ok so i dnt hav d resources 2 dwnld so help me ooo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
can any1 hook me up wit a copy. preferably xubuntu but any would do i guess. av even started learnin stuff u'd be surprised. i stay in lagos n kd. MAKE UNA PPLLLEEAASE HELP ME WIT A COPY. BIGROVAR, NIGGY E.T.C. I CANT WAIT. AV JUST FOUND A NEW BABY,, LINUX! abeg y do d names always funny? ubuntu, kubuntu, jaunty jackalope e.t.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
blackweaver (m)
|
just wondering, why do you want Xubuntu anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
Because my system aint exactly top range! 512mb ram! Does'nt leave much room 4 hiaaj n d xfce is d lightweight ubuntu ain't it? See av done my research. Anyway anyone would do since i can always add a repository and get xfce. So basically i just need ubuntu, wateva flavor. Or mint too. Just want a linux live cd so i can take d plunge. Am going to enjoy it i knw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
blackweaver (m)
|
512 ram? ok however there are other lightweight distros that will fly
with that much (or that little depending on how you look at it) ram
nd some of them also have noce guis too
where do you live perhaps we can meet and i could give you some
tips or some cds; i live in Ogba, work in Ikeja.
unfortunately i don't have xfce but i could give you some other stuff
that may run even faster
|
|
|
|
|
|
blackweaver (m)
|
@bigrovar, flyuche i know you guys like getting the best graphics out of your pcs you probably have
state of the art hardware; unfortunately my graphics card is onboard and not
particularly impressive. Anyway i'm more on the performance stuff;
i like to get as much speed out of my hardware as possible. 'cos of this
i generally prefer to use "barebone" oses like slackware and arch to ubuntu and co and on those
oses i ALWAYS use runlevel 3 i.e always start in command line (don't really like gdm, xdm or kdm).
of course i still go into X but i prefer starting from command line; i believe it's faster
Now my question is this do you ever decide to use a distro that's not as graphically enhanced as
those images that you've been oppressing us with and if so, which window managers do you like using?
for instance i use icewm on slackware (even though i have all the other window managers too but i
dislike the delay) also on arch linux(where i don't have kde or gnome or xfce) and for my file manager i use
pcmanfm (but sometimes use konqueror too) i've used rox as my file manager but i don't like the fact that it doesn't
have an address bar which is something i dislike aboutt gnome's file manager too (i can't even remember the name)
|
|
|
|
|
|
4llerbe (m)
|
@ weaver, i stay off college road. karaole estate. no 08035465941. wuld appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigrovar (m)
|
@bigrovar, flyuche i know you guys like getting the best graphics out of your pcs you probably have
state of the art hardware; unfortunately my graphics card is onboard and not
particularly impressive. Anyway i'm more on the performance stuff;
i like to get as much speed out of my hardware as possible. 'cos of this
i generally prefer to use "barebone" oses like slackware and arch to ubuntu and co and on those
oses i ALWAYS use runlevel 3 i.e always start in command line (don't really like gdm, xdm or kdm).
of course i still go into X but i prefer starting from command line; i believe it's faster
Now my question is this do you ever decide to use a distro that's not as graphically enhanced as
those images that you've been oppressing us with and if so, which window managers do you like using?
for instance i use icewm on slackware (even though i have all the other window managers too but i
dislike the delay) also on arch linux(where i don't have kde or gnome or xfce) and for my file manager i use
pcmanfm (but sometimes use konqueror too) i've used rox as my file manager but i don't like the fact that it doesn't
have an address bar which is something i dislike aboutt gnome's file manager too (i can't even remember the name)
when i want to go the minimalist route i use lxde which uses gtk but comes with the openbox window manager. it uses pcmanfm as filemanager and comes with very light tools , the desktop enviroment is still very young and although its very stable and has its one tools for heavy gnome evivalent its still under heavy development as work is in place to replace things like network manager, Totem player with lighter lxde based equivalents. i dont start my system on runlevel 3 by default , but i use slim instead of gdm which can be very heavy on a little resourced machine. when i want to keep it light i stick with arch because its built to be modular and by defaults worsk in such a way that allows you to enable only what you need , or most modules and daemons are disabled by default which is just fine with me when am trying to keep it light, also for everyday computing here are the tools i use when am on a resource starved machine Note= leafpad Music= MPD + sonata Word processing = abiword Terminal = terminator/xfce4-terminal filemanager = pcmanfm mail = Claws Pictures = GPicView web browser = midori but preferably arora both are based on webkit very fast and light etc |
|
|
|
|
|
blackweaver (m)
|
another browser i could mention is dillo; or links, there's a graphical version of links too
sometimes use a command line text editor called joe; nano too's ok
but always gets me lost; don't know the keystrokes
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigrovar (m)
|
another browser i could mention is dillo; or links, there's a graphical version of links too
sometimes use a command line text editor called joe; nano too's ok
but always gets me lost; don't know the keystrokes
for minimal browsers the best i have used is arora. uses webkit and based on qt , but integrate well with gnome , very light and very fast , just like what firefox use to be |
|
|
|
|
|
esquire (m)
|
Nobody is even taliking of seamonkey which is based on mozilla webkit and its blazing fast used before on puppy linux
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
