Splashtop, Linux For Windows

[devilock76]

I wouldn't recommend Arch for anyone other than playing in a sandbox. Here's a post I made in another forum...

http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2011/...-notso-secret/

I was considering playing around with this distro, but this is a deal breaker. One of the biggest benefits of Linux is security, and if that's undermined at the foundation, why bother?

I agree, on the issues with Arch, Arch's goal is bleeding edge, similar to Fedora or Debian Unstable, and that is not compatible with security and especially a server environment. However it has advantages for people who have the technical know how and have special needs, like say audio and video production. Arch is higly recommended among the Linux Musician community. Personally I use Fedora with Project CCRMA repos and the RT kernel, but Arch has merit, again when trying to do more with less (under powered hardware). Music software is still a big moving target on Linux so the bleeding edge advantage of Arch has its uses. For me Fedora was the choice for synchronicity with teh CentOS servers as far as administration environment. If I do make the switch to FreeBSD then Arch may come into play. Especially if I get an iMac at one point I may virtualize Arch under it for a linux sandbox.

Your concerns are noted, but please note like I said, Arch is not a newbie's distro unless that newbie is doing it to learn more about how Linux works. One could easily instead suggest Slackware for that educational goal.

Ken

[lxskllr]

I may not use ubuntu personally as much as I used to but I will still keep my eyes on it because it is a useful distro particularly for installing for non-technical users. PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, and OpenSUSE are the only other distros that come close but of all of those I find Ubuntu tends to still have the best combination of performance (especially on older machines), GUI config tools and application selection (combined with Synaptic for ease of installation and finding packages). OpenSUSE is a great choice though for YAST for power users who are not technical.

Ken

It seems like Ubuntu's vision of computing is diverging from mine. I'm keeping my eye on it, but I'm thinking about switching to Debian on my next install. I'm currently running 10.04, with a upgrade on the next LTS release(12.04), so I'll see where things stand then. From what I've seen, I'm not a fan of Unity, and Gnome3 shell looks like an abortion also. Maybe run Debian with Gnome 2.x :^/

[devilock76]

Debian installs are just as easy these days. Also, how something installs tells me nothing. How well the install holds up over time, especially with updates, is what matters most to me.

The install is important for the first time user with no support and a crashed windows box who decides to try to make the switch before buying a new machine. Granted Linux is typically easier and less time consuming to install than Winblows, but most users have never installed an OS of any kind including Winblows. They are used to it being there.

That easy installation is a key to a growing linux desktop end user market share, and that is really all there is to it. Yeah sure you and I can setup X windows from scratch, but that is beyond the ken of the average home computer user.

Ken

[snupy]

I'm thinking about switching to Debian on my next install.

Debian is brain dead easy to install these days. What I do is use the net install CD, execpt towards the end, when it asks which desktop or additional software to install, I make sure ALL categories are not checked. This leaves a minimal install with just the base. Then, go get smxi and install it. Smxi is kind of a master script to install all manner of things in Debian, such as desktops, select your login manager, java and flash plugins, etc. It also does system maintenance. With smxi, you can easily track Testing instead of Stable. Some use it to track Unstable, but that is a bit too out there for me. If tracking Testing or Unstable, smxi will check metpackages, like kde or gnome, to make sure any new updates don't leave conflicts. I was actually tracking Testing with smxi, prior to the Squeeze release, and had exactly ZERO issues. It ran just like Stable, because smxi is very careful about what it does and does not update.

[snupy]

That easy installation is a key to a growing linux desktop end user market share, and that is really all there is to it. Yeah sure you and I can setup X windows from scratch, but that is beyond the ken of the average home computer user.

You must not have used Debian. There is no need to setup X from scratch.

[devilock76]

You must not have used Debian. There is no need to setup X from scratch.

I was referring to why ease is important. You already had said setting up Debian is easy. It used to not be. I remember my first debian install took 12 floppy disks to install to a 386 box to get my self to have a bash shell that I setup as a router.

Sadly I also remember having to recompile a kernel from Caldera to make a laptop sound card work.

You know I sometimes lament the early tweaking days of linux. Yeah I probably got less work done to the business purpose of the machine, but cutting my teeth in those days taught me a lot.

Ken

[devilock76]

Debian is brain dead easy to install these days. What I do is use the net install CD, execpt towards the end, when it asks which desktop or additional software to install, I make sure ALL categories are not checked. This leaves a minimal install with just the base. Then, go get smxi and install it. Smxi is kind of a master script to install all manner of things in Debian, such as desktops, select your login manager, java and flash plugins, etc. It also does system maintenance. With smxi, you can easily track Testing instead of Stable. Some use it to track Unstable, but that is a bit too out there for me. If tracking Testing or Unstable, smxi will check metpackages, like kde or gnome, to make sure any new updates don't leave conflicts. I was actually tracking Testing with smxi, prior to the Squeeze release, and had exactly ZERO issues. It ran just like Stable, because smxi is very careful about what it does and does not update.

I used to use Debian for years until I started finding apt-get to be more trouble than savior. It was about that time that I switched to Slackware for a while.

Ken

[lxskllr]

I've run Debian in a VM, but had to ditch it when upgrading to sid. I didn't have much room in the VM, and I ran out of space :^D

The net install was very easy. My experience with Debian is the reason I stayed with Ubuntu. By the time I finished configuring everything, it virtually was Ubuntu. Might as well take care of that from the start. Now that Ubuntu's changing, I could reconfigure everything myself, but if I'm gonna do that, I might as well go to the source and run Debian. I liked Ubuntu cause it was perfect for me out of the box. I added/subtracted a couple things, but it was basically the default install. That's getting to be less and less the case with each new release....

[snupy]

You already had said setting up Debian is easy. It used to not be. I remember my first debian install took 12 floppy disks to install to a 386 box to get my self to have a bash shell that I setup as a router.

Debian really did use to be a royal bitch to install. With the newer installer, those days are gone, but the reputation of previous years still seems to stick to Debian.

[snupy]

I used to use Debian for years until I started finding apt-get to be more trouble than savior.

With smxi, I can set which tool to use for package management and I always select aptitude.

[snupy]

Now that Ubuntu's changing, I could reconfigure everything myself, but if I'm gonna do that, I might as well go to the source and run Debian. I liked Ubuntu cause it was perfect for me out of the box. I added/subtracted a couple things, but it was basically the default install. That's getting to be less and less the case with each new release....

What about LMDE?

[devilock76]

Don't get me wrong, Debian might be back in the mix if I the following things happen, FreeBSD does not take over my servers and I get sick of CentOS but refuse to drop the dime in RHEL for personal usage.

Debian is a distro I consider equally capable on both the workstation and the server.

Ken

[lxskllr]

What about LMDE?

I'm not a big fan of Mint. I don't care for the changes they made to the default Ubuntu, and it's starting to get a little too far from the core system. Also, testing is kind of a no man's land in Debian. You get a stodgy system without fast security updates :^D I'd run sid on Debian for a desktop box. Stable is best for servers, and when you need absolute stability imo.

[devilock76]

As to the Gnome and windows managers discussion. I am not sold on Unity yet, but I find the project intresting in that it is part of OLPC. I still use Gnome when I need a full DE, but most of the time on the workstation I use LXDE. I also always have a special place in my heart for Fluxbox because it is dead simple to configure and use without a mouse, lightweigh and quite frankly a great WM to just get things done.

Ken

[snupy]

but most of the time on the workstation I use LXDE.

My mom, who's 75 and never used Windows, uses LXDE on Debian. I think it is easier for newbies, due to it's simplicity (not that mom's a newbie any more). I don't use icons on the desktop, so I roll my own LXDE with openbox, fbpanel and pcmanfm. Although, the menu is most important to me. I MUST be able to customize the menu and configure a left-handed desktop. If I can't customize the menu and have a left-handed setup, it really pisses me off.