Win 7 v Mageia Linux

[saptech]

Since I was off an extra (Wed), I decided to switch hard drives for my C2D system I bought off Ebay. It came with Ubuntu 11.10 so I was going to keep it installed for awhile, I really don't care for Ubuntu, but it was a joy to use.

I installed Win7 on it first, what a chore that was. I had to unplug the ext. HD before it would continue installing at the partition screen. It seems the ext. HD confused it or something, too many partitions. Once I got W7 installed, I had to use my cell phone to goto Dropbox and download the MIFI adapter driver (RNDISInst). I don't know why Windows doesn't include this by default, but good thing Linux does. Win XP or Vista do not include it either.

I installed a fresh copy of the Mageia 3 Alpha 2 LiveCD on the system with 2gb of memory. It is the Gnome 3 version also. So far so good. No issues that I see and the installation went well. It picked up my Windows 7 installation and added it to Grub. It also picked up the external hard drive (500gb) and included my MIFI USB internet adapter without issues.

Who says Linux is too hard to install and use???

Just some thoughts on how these installations went.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Why would anyone choose Mageia to run GNOME?

 

[argedion]

I Like Gnome. It has taken a few versions for me to get used to this 3.x but fedora 15, 16, and now 17 I'm finally getting the hang of it. I've tried to run KDE but just to heavy for me and XFCE is a bit light but I do run LXDE on both my servers.

 

[saptech]

I prefer something other than KDE, it's too bloated, IMO. I like XFCE also but haven't gotten around to install it yet, along with Openbox. Since I used Ubuntu Unity for a few days, it wasn't bad, so now I'm willing to try the full Gnome 3. I did run G3 in Fallback Mode on my older system once Mga2 stop using G2.

I may eventually install KDE, since I do like trying different things.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Nothing wrong with liking GNOME.

The thing is that Mandrake, later Mandriva and now Mageia was developed from the beginning to be "Red Hat Linux, but with KDE" choosing GNOME over KDE begs the question "why don't you just use Red Hat?"

 

[Speed Daemon]

I prefer something other than KDE, it's too bloated, IMO.

If you're talking about KDE4, sure. But they're saying the same thing about GNOME3 so...

That's why I use OpenSUSE with KDE3. OpenSUSE is the only distro that I know of that actively maintains KDE3 with regular weekly updates, bug fixes etc. There's also Trinity Desktop, which aims to extend KDE3 and improve some things (like arts) that didn't work out in KDE3. I'm waiting for a major distro to pick up Trinity so I don't have to do more work, but I hope to move to it when it's ready for production.

 

[saptech]

I've tried alot of distros at one time or another but got tired of fiddling around with them. About 2008 is when I decided to use a so called easy distro and went with Mandriva and then Mageia.

Now when I do use/try, I stick with the major distros, such as Slackware, Redhat/Fedora, Debian, Mandriva/Mageia now. Salix OS is a nice one to use, it comes with Xfce4 by default. I hardly try any of the newer distros anymore.

Thnx for the tips though.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I've tried alot of distros at one time or another but got tired of fiddling around with them. About 2008 is when I decided to use a so called easy distro and went with Mandriva and then Mageia.

I remember a dozen years ago when what was then still called Mandrake Linux was touted as THE "easy to use" Linux distribution. This reputation was gained in part because Mandrake was the first to have a complete control panel application, allowing the user to do everything from a GUI, and thus giving a pig-headed minority (who in a different era would have burned "witches") that criticized Linux as "being tied to the CLI".

In fact, Mandrake was an excellent distribution that was IMO the best KDE-based distro of the time, the most powerful to use with both GUI tools and traditional UNIX admin techniques, and a pretty smart looking distro.

This all ended after the corporation that Mandrake founder Ga

 

[Haggistech]

I like KDE4 as i used this on Opensuse

but my current system is Arch and Fedora 17 XCFE on Arch and Gnome 3 on Fedora

 

[Bob Maxey]

Easy and simple? Hmmm . . . not so sure. Although being able to install trusted software with just a few words typed into Terminal is cool. I am in love with the DOS promot . . . I mean Terminal.

I downloaded and installed the KDE Desktop. No searching for SW, just a handful of words I actually understand typed into the DOS prompt, and hit enter. Vast amounts of data were magically downloaded, unpacked, inastalled and setup. Took forever, but no worrying about web searches. You gotta love that.

When I decided to go Linux, all in, all the time, I had quite a time determining which install file to use when i found something on the web. And once I downloaded it, WTF do I do with a .tar.gz.zip.YouAreScrewed file? And once installed, where the heck did it go? Not in "programs" that is for sure. Not on my "start menu" either.

My guess is those that say Linux is easy, is either a huge brain or they are avoiding the simple "fact:" Some things are difficult without a good help file (MAN page, in Linux speak, I think, smiley) they will be as lost as me.

I had to deal with UNIX at work. UNIX was the OS for some of our test stations. Fortunately, Test Engineering did not give too many of us root access and the GUI provided lots of buttons. I also recall trying to install some version of Linux on my old 486 laptop. I gave up trying to install a GUI.

I think Linux is easy, but the learning curve is a tad steeper than it is with Windows. Most people will likely scratch their head trying to figure out how to do things like installing software. Even using the software center(s) some things can be hard for some people.

Like me. I am growing less confused, but I still ask Mr. G. for his wisdom.

Today . . . I will find a spellear chacker. It is the AM so excuse the bad speeling. I am not proff reading today.

I understand that the application called BSOD that comes with every Windows version does not have a Linux counterpart? True or not?

 

[Bob Maxey]

Because Linux is only the kernel, the OS part of the distribution, it's the tip of the iceberg of a Linux distro. Sadly what most people know as "Linux" has become a hodgepodge of distros at widely varying stages of maturity, with much duplication of effort and cross purposes. In short, Linux has caught the BSD disease in a big way.

I am amazed at the vast numbers of distros out there. My view is they all cannot be good. But I do not know enough at this point to know what is good, what is bad and what rules.

I have tried just a few and the big differences seem to be in the desktop and the programs added by the developer. Why DL a "Spin" that is aimed at writers when I can DL Mint and add the programs I need?

But once again, I do not know enough to say much about how good one distro or fork is compared to another. I am thinking I should worry less about the DT and spend my time learning BASH. Seems to be a faster way to get things done.

 

[donec]

I think Linux is easy, but the learning curve is a tad steeper than it is with Windows. Most people will likely scratch their head trying to figure out how to do things like installing software. Even using the software center(s) some things can be hard for some people.

I agree that the learning curve for Linux even an easy to use distro like Linux Mint is a little longer for Windows users. However! With the introduction of Win8 Linux becomes easier and has less of a learning curve than going from Win7 to Win8. I am currently using Linux Mint 13 KDE and have had it booting with Win7 and Win8. Switching from Win7 to Win8 will cause a lot more confusion for Win7 users than swithching to Linux Mint 13 KDE.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I agree that the learning curve for Linux even an easy to use distro like Linux Mint is a little longer for Windows users. However! With the introduction of Win8 Linux becomes easier and has less of a learning curve than going from Win7 to Win8. I am currently using Linux Mint 13 KDE and have had it booting with Win7 and Win8. Switching from Win7 to Win8 will cause a lot more confusion for Win7 users than swithching to Linux Mint 13 KDE.

IMHO a lot of this imagined "Linux is hard" stuff is rooted in ignorance. Microsoft has done plenty to confound their Windows users, and they just don't complain. Maybe they're afraid of being laughed at. But Windows (and Macintosh) users are perfectly willing to silently endure countless, pointless, baffling changes for no apparent reason. They will forgive the costly software vendors every time, but complain bitterly about FOSS that works just like the expensive stuff. Sure there's a learning curve when moving to a new OS/GUI/style. But is it really any worse than when Microsoft or Apple changes their GUI/style?

 

[Davdi]

I can see Win 8 turning many people to Macs or Linux. I too have tried many distros over the years (Open GEU anyone?) but come back to PCLOS or Mint, although I do quite like Centos. As for desktops, I used to like Gnome (Pre Gnome 3). I've never got on with KDE in any of it's incarnations adn these days prefer XFCE or Enlightenment for day-to-tay use, or LXDEon older machines. FOr really old boxes, Fluxbox, IceWm or Openbox wll run really well.

 

[mikedt]

I am amazed at the vast numbers of distros out there. My view is they all cannot be good. But I do not know enough at this point to know what is good, what is bad and what rules.

I know Red Flag Linux from Beijing is not good, I've tried it. AFAIK most people in China when they want to use Linux, it's nearly always Ubuntu. Another distro I might give a spin one day out of curiosity, when I get around to it, is Red Star OS from North Korea. There was a really horrid distro that came with some netbooks around 2009, called Linpus.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Linpus...sounds like a disease.

 

[donec]

Linpus...sounds like a disease.

Runs like it also.

 

[saptech]

That is one thing that turned people off of Linux when Netbooks came on the scene, the MFGs put a completely unknown or self-built version of linux on them and they all gave a terrible linux experience. I do not understand why the mfg didn't include a well known distro, such as Ubuntu, Redhat/Fedora, Suse or Debian and work with them on including it on the netbook. I believe it would have given Linux a better upperhand to newbies.

 

[Haggistech]

"lindows" still makes me shiver yet lol

 

[mikedt]

Linpus...sounds like a disease.

Free with my new Lenovo laptop....

You get a feeling that this is not going to be good...


Fisher Price Linux...

...and it really sucks!! Can't read NTFS drives, can't play most common video formats, like DivX. The ironic thing is, during initial setup it invites you to share the experience with your Facebook friends. This is on a computer sold in China, there is no Facebook in China....Doh!

 

[saptech]

Free with my new Lenovo laptop....

I woulda thought Lenovo picked a more well known distro for those!!!

It just show how much companies try to save/make money.

 

[Speed Daemon]

That is one thing that turned people off of Linux when Netbooks came on the scene, the MFGs put a completely unknown or self-built version of linux on them and they all gave a terrible linux experience. I do not understand why the mfg didn't include a well known distro, such as Ubuntu, Redhat/Fedora, Suse or Debian and work with them on including it on the netbook. I believe it would have given Linux a better upperhand to newbies.

I doubt that most Linux users even know that they're using Linux, whether it's the not-mentioned OS running an appliance or the briefly named OS running a nettop. When I got my first TiVo, my Zaurus and my eeePC, Linux was a big influence on my purchase. But other buyers seemed to be a lot less interested in the Linux part than I was...