Teach Me The Why's, and I Just Might Convert

[Juparis]

So, utlimately, my question is this: What makes Linux so much better than Windows, besides the fact that it's open source and supposedly immune to many viruses because of security holes and what-not.. (please do not mention GIMP; I have my own reasons for loathing that programme)

Secondly, what's the advantage of using Gentoo vs. Ubuntu?
Despite what nox tells you, I do know a few basics--Ubuntu is suppose to be for all the newbs, whereas Gentoo is for all those hardcore fans who want it customized to their machine. (I know more than that, but I'm trying to be concise)..

I've heard it's faster, but that's all I've heard so far. I'm interested in installing it, if it's really worth partitioning my hard drive (which I have yet to learn how to do as well).

Anyone care to preach the answers? I may convert. ;)

[BonRouge]

Reasons I use Linux (currently Kubuntu):

All the software is free.
I just like the whole idea of not relying on Mr Gates for everything.
amaroK (music player) is great.
I like Bluefish (text editor) and kate (the default KDE text editor).
All that command line stuff makes me feel like I'm learning something.
The system checks for software updates when you switch it on and then downloads and installs them.
Hmmm.... I can't think of many more reasons.


Reasons I use Windows:

There is more software.
WinAmp is pretty good.
NTFS can store larger files than FAT32 (which has a max of 3GB if I remember right)
I can test websites in Internet Explorer.
I can play poker.
I understand it better than Linux.
I very, very rarely need to use any command line stuff, so it just feels easier.


As for partitioning the hard drive, the Ubuntu installer will pretty much do that for you.

[Juparis]

I'm curious; what's something like amaroK or WinAmp got over Windows Media? More features, I'm sure, but what? I'm so use to using the defaults, I don't konw what else is out there. :P

And though I'll probaly look it up later, how does Kubuntu compare to Ubuntu and Gentoo? (and are there others?) ...course, if you don't get this till late, no worries; like I said, I'll probably look it up later.

Thanks though, for the lists. :D

[BonRouge]

One thing I like about both of those players is the lyrics scripts. They will get the lyrics of the song that's playing from a database as soon as it starts playing. That's pretty cool. amaroK also automatically pulls up the Wikipedia page of the artist that's currently playing. That can be interesting too. I can listen to BBC radio with amaroK, but I don't think that's possible with WMP as it's a Real Player stream. (Of course, I could just open up Firefox and listen to the radio with that, but it is one way in which amaroK is better than WMP.)

WinAmp is good because it's a lot more customizable than WMP. You can show as much or as little information as you want on the screen - your library, the playlist, lyrics, visualisations, etc, and you can put them where you want - put the lyrics on the left your screen like a sidebar with the playlist in a little box in the corner - that kind of thing.

Kubuntu uses KDE while Ubuntu uses GNOME. They're essentially the same systems, but they have a different look and feel to them. I prefer the look of KDE. I think the look of KDE is probably more familiar to people as it's a little bit like Windows. Those are the two main kinds of desktop environments, and you can choose either one on most kinds of Linux (as far as I'm aware). You can install Ubuntu and then switch to KDE and you've essentially got Kubuntu.

I don't know about Gentoo - never tried it - but I'm sure you can find out. I was using Fedora Core 5, where I first used GNOME and then switched to KDE (it's very easy to do). I switched to Kubuntu when I had problems with the upgrade to Fedora Core 6.

I think with the 'shall I install Linux?' thing, the question is 'what have you got to lose?' The answer would be the time it takes to download, burn and install the (Ubuntu) DVD. After that, you'll have a choice and you'll be able to compare Windows and Linux for yourself. That's all. Your life's not going to change, but you'll know just a little more.

[nox-Hand]

Okay, Jupie, here goes! :)



Well, for startes, it is not really about convincing. If I had to convince you to use Linux, you probably should not use it. You should not use it because we push you to, you should use it because you want to.


Now, for starters, I will line out what desktop you should pick, as this is a major influence on how you will come to like your Linux.


Basicly, the two main desktops in Linux are GNOME and KDE. People can make applications specially for KDE or specially for GNOME. If you use KDE, you can stil use GNOME applications. If you chose to install a quickie simple Operating System such as something from the *buntu series, it will install either KDE with all the KDE apps, or GNOME with it's alternate version of the applications. Think of it like this: when you get KDE, you get the DESKTOP and then a text editor called Kate and a browser called Konqueror. When you install GNOME, you get a text editor called Gedit and a browser called Epiphany. It is like that all the way through if you install something from the *buntu series, as Ubuntu is a GNOME-based install, and Kubuntu is the KDE based install. Same operating systems, different basic applications.


However, note that you will get Firefox and other neat stuff, of course ;)


Chose wisely in what you want. I'd look on Wikipedia about it :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME

I personally don't like KDE, as I find it too Windows-like, and not very intelligent compared to GNOME. Gnome has two panels (one at top and one at bottom) and they are used for different tasks. All panels can be removed or moved about, so that's not what should make you chose.




When chosing OS you need to ask yourself this question: Do I want simplicity or speed? When you install *buntu you get a nice graphical installer (which is a 700mb download! :o) and then you install everything from a friendly installer that can have you running everything within 30 minutes. When you install *buntu, you get the bootloader and everything installed automagically, and it just *works*. You get the desktop, applications and in most cases even all the laptop buttons work from the off.


If you install Gentoo, it's the hard way. You can almost feel it by comparing the look of www.ubuntu.com and www.gentoo.org as Gentoo just looks.. Geek :) If you install Gentoo, you will after a long time have yourself a command line interface and you are ready to install applications. This is when *you* choose what you want, which might in some cases leave you thinking "what do I need and what are they called? o_O". When you get Gentoo, it uses what is called USE flags. Basicly it is an optimiser for your system, and all applications are compiled from source. For example, Firefox takes me PC about two hours to install with Gentoo, where good old Ubuntu will take you the time it takes to download + extracting. All in all, Gentoo is awesomely fast, but it is a hard upkeep. You will clearly learn a lot by using Gentoo, but it will, however, also leave you feeling this was hard and pointless.

If you want to play a CD, you need to go to command line and log in as root (admin), mount the CD (mount /dev/hd<foo> /mnt/cdrom, and when you play with USB disks (flash even!) it gets even harder to do :) Unless you manually set up automount which not even I have attempted yet. Ubuntu has autoload, so when you put it in, it will work. Your camera? No problem, it's detected and it will open up the right program. Actually, come to think of it, the speed trade off was the only reason for me to use Gentoo. I also like control. In Gentoo you make your own kernel, so it is configured to your hardware, so it will run faster; it takes time and is hard to get right, but it is awesome!


All in all, for starters I suggest you download and install Ubuntu. You can run Ubuntu off the CD as a LiveCD so you can even try it before you install. Partitioning can be done inside the installer, and it's all simple.

If you choose to use Gentoo, take a look at the manual FIRST. Note how much you gotta do :) All the way to *11*


http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?full=1


Now, I messed up my first Gentoo install, and after a while I buggered off to Ubuntu. I stayed there for a loooong time, as you HAVE to love how it just works :) The support is great in both these Distributions as there are always about 1000 people in the IRC channels - Ubuntu support is easier though


Consider greatly, though Ubuntu is almost harmless :)



Oh, yeah, by the way... The Ubuntu from Windows installer should work for you if you have never partitioned! :) Note that the username and password are not assigned :/ They will be "ubuntu" and "ubuntu"

[Juparis]

Thanks for the suggestions, both of you.
I do have one questions--sort of pertinent--and I'm not even sure what it is yet. I'm pretty sure my new laptop (which, being away for evaluation/repairs makes me just 'pretty sure' ), has 64-bit support. While talking to some friends today, one had mentioned I should buy Vista to take advantage of having that type of support. It was a brief chat, so I never really got a good picture of whether or not using 64-bit apps and what-not will really make a differense. If so, is Linux capable with any of that?

Sorry for being so vague--at the moment, I know I want speed, and that's about it. :P My basic idea (at the moment) is this: When my new laptop returns, instead of trying to maintain two OS's, I'll keep regular Windows XP on it (I've heard of the many horrors and mistakes that can occur with Vista's anti-piracy features, not to mention it's a memory-hogger). Then, when I can backup my files on this computer (I'm thinking, external HDD?), I'll install some form of Linux. Gentoo sounds great; I love speed. But I also need something that's efficient with its resources, because this poor thing can overheat at the drop of a hat. I'll get that fixed in the future, but I would still rather not have to strain the processor like that again... Gentoo, *buntu? Which one's better?

As per GNOME vs KDE, I can't decide. It'll take me a while just to sift through the jargon Wikipedia generously supplies. :lol: I generally do not like the brown colors of GNOME, but I'm assuming they can be changed--the idea of two taskbars is tantilizing. :smug:

Anyway, I have run Ubuntu before, so I know a few of the basics; that was a while ago, though. All that LiveCD and InstallerCD stuff I know, at the very least. :D

For the time being I'll keep Windows--just till my new lappy gets back, because I'm apprehensive about starting a project to adapt to Linux with only one computer to host/organize my years of files (which sounds like a lot, but really isn't compared to you, nox). :D

Thanks for all your help, guys! :)

[nox-Hand]

If you do NOT want to stress your PC, get Ubuntu. When you compile stuff it is one of the most stressing things you can set a processor to do it is doing :rofl:


Yes, the brown can be changed. There are nice pimping tutorials, or you can do it all yourself: it's easy.

KDE is changeable, but not as much as GNOME.

Errrm, Ubuntu I think :)

[Juparis]

Haha, sounds like it might be a plan. But I'll wait til I change the heatsink. If all goes as planned, I might stick with Gentoo just for the learning experience...

So compiling is stressful, but what about after Gentoo is installed?

[kapaha]

but what about after Gentoo is installed?

You still have to compile everything you want to run on Gentoo linux manually, so throughout the life of you processor, if you are running gentoo, you'll be compiling things.

[nox-Hand]

You are catching on, dearest :D


Correct, EVERYTHING is compiled in Gentoo. That's it's strength along with "USE" flags. When you compile in other distributions, you compile EVERYTHING in the application, thus making it slower. For example, if you compile XFCE ( another desktop enviroment) in another distribution you will get support for all sorts of stuff you never want. In Gentoo you can add a USE flag that will give you automatic Desktop icons, but only the stuff you want! i.e when you compile a program it detects your other applications and compile it for them. Awesome stuff :D

[Juparis]

I'm still not gettin this whole compiling thing--I thought this was for speed or something. :lol:

[nox-Hand]

The speed comes from compiling ;)

[Juparis]

Yet it puts so much stress on the processor? That doesn't make sense to me... If you're continually stressin' out your processor, how does it magically become faster?

And when do you even realize that it's faster if you're continually compiling?

([k]ubuntu is sounding more tempting each day)

[Thirsty Ferret]

I use Ubuntu, Jup, and it's great. Really lightweight, everything seems to just work, and installing and removing stuff is (almost) as easy as it is in windows (not too bad using a graphical app, although I prefer the command line / terminal)

Beryl (http://www.beryl-project.org) makes it look nice - transparent window frames and all kinds of crazy things can be done. It'll make proper use of a nice graphics card, if you have one in your lappy - mine is onboard, and it still looks stunning.

[nox-Hand]

The speed increase comes after compiling. I am, however, doubting myself once again, as Ubuntu may not be exactly same speed but compiling, having to wait for all sorts and having to mount DVDs and other stuff manually is becoming a pain....

I recommend Ubuntu. I just installed it for my mate with Beryl. It's awesome. Just make sure you READ WHAT IT STATES on wiki-pages. Such as "you have to have this done before" as I forgot that and I lost half an hours work on that :rofl: