Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user? - Linux

This is a discussion on Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user? - Linux ; Which Linux should I install? I'd described myself as a (very) old hat regarding Unix in general, but an ignorant newbie regarding modern Linuxes. I intend to do *nothing* sophisticated with either hardware or software, and do *not* want to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

  1. Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?


    Which Linux should I install? I'd described myself as a (very)
    old hat regarding Unix in general, but an ignorant newbie
    regarding modern Linuxes. I intend to do *nothing* sophisticated
    with either hardware or software, and do *not* want to spend time
    learning Install procedures. I'm relatively comfortable with
    lower-level methods. (For example, I usually do 'vi /etc/passwd' or
    'vipw', etc. rather than 'adduser'!).

    I've been running an old RedHat system for several years; the
    computer is failing so yesterday I bought a Compaq laptop; the
    computer store installed a Ubuntu/WindowsXP dual-boot system for me.
    I'd never even heard of Ubuntu, but figured it wouldn't
    matter much. Now I'm faced with the choice of adapting to Ubuntu,
    switching to Fedora, or ???. I noticed some messages
    suggesting Fedora tends to be unstable. Should I go with
    Fedora 8 rather than Fedora 9?

    (By the way, I could live without Windows at all, but it's
    "free" to install. Are there good reasons for installing Linux
    only, rather than a "dual-boot" configuration?)

    I'm sure my question has been asked and answered many times
    in many forms already -- so much so in fact that I'm afraid it will
    just add to my confusion to wade through all the discussions.

    The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously, until
    I learned that my own password was good enough, apparently,
    as long as I could spell 'sudo -i'. I decided it might be convenient
    to have a more ordinary root login, but was unable to adduser
    with id 0. This particular Ubuntu peculiarity may cause no trouble,
    but I fear it represents a philosophy antithetical to mine which
    I will grow to hate.

    Meanwhile I discovered neither csh nor tcsh was installed!
    This may have been an oversight by the rather Unix-ignorant tech
    who installed Ubuntu for me, but it seemed quite bizarre these
    wouldn't be loaded by default. I'll buy an Ubuntu CD and presumably
    find it easy to install them, but is this a precursor
    of greater unhappiness to come?

    I'm in the "big city" until tomorrow, but live far away so want to
    make my decision quickly while CD's and handholding are available.

    Thanks for any quick advice!
    Sam

  2. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Singburi Sam on Tuesday 23 September 2008 05:40 : \____

    > I'm in the "big city" until tomorrow, but live far away so want to
    > make my decision quickly while CD's and handholding are available.


    Give Mandriva 2008.1 a try. I'm very pleased with it and, based on my own
    experience, it's better than Ubuntu (of which I've used many versions of the
    years, including the first).

    Mandriva is RPM-based, just like Red Hat that you've already used. The
    repository is similar to that of Debian/Ubuntu, so there's nothing but messing
    about with tickboxes to manage software. There's so sudo and the command line
    is obsolete.

    - --
    "There is such an overvaluation of technology stocks that it is absurd. I would
    include our stock in that category. It is bad for the long-term worth of the
    economy."
    --Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjYlt4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6UmACgsP4DKm4NEu TRVxaP2zFInqqS
    fR4An2ygQ2HTTPdhhZMeCmXRCHiLRDDW
    =btvw
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    >> I'm in the "big city" until tomorrow, but live far away so want to
    >> make my decision quickly while CD's and handholding are available.

    >
    > Give Mandriva 2008.1 a try. I'm very pleased with it and, based on my own
    > experience, it's better than Ubuntu (of which I've used many versions of
    > the years, including the first).
    >
    > Mandriva is RPM-based, just like Red Hat that you've already used. The
    > repository is similar to that of Debian/Ubuntu, so there's nothing but
    > messing about with tickboxes to manage software. There's so sudo and the
    > command line is obsolete.


    I second that. I've been using Mandriva for several years now; it's a
    pleasure to work with, and offers great hardware support. And indeed none
    of my ordinary users have ever had to use the command line (although I use
    it on a daily basis myself).

    Make sure of the following things though:

    - Get the full DVD version if possible; the Live CD version (Mandriva One)
    appears to have a few rough edges.

    - After the initial installation, go to http://easyurpmi.zarb.org to add
    extra package sources to the install, most notably the PLF sources for
    multimedia support, accelerated video drivers and other proprietary stuff.
    If something appears to hang during this step, just wait a few minutes --
    the package manager is probably checking for updates, which blocks your
    access to the package database during that time.

    - Fire up the package manager (found in Mandriva's main configuration tool)
    and install flash-player-plugin, mplayerplugin, win32-codecs, libdvdcss2,
    lame and liblame0. You may want to go to the package source configuration
    first, and disable the "CD" sources, so that Mandriva installs everything
    directly from the Internet.

    - Open the device manager and confirm the choice of graphics card; if there
    is a proprietary driver available, Mandriva will tell you at this point,
    and ask you if you want to have it installed. Simply click Yes and wait for
    the install to finish. I usually reboot after this (although it's not
    really necessary) to make certain everything works OK.

    - Finally, a minute or so after the next login, you will see a red
    exclamation mark in the system tray, indicating available updates. Simply
    click this icon and install the updates. Please note that the first time,
    this may take a *long* time, because it's several hundred megabytes of
    updates at least. After this, you're all set.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  4. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Richard Rasker on Tuesday 23 September 2008 09:31 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >>> I'm in the "big city" until tomorrow, but live far away so want to
    >>> make my decision quickly while CD's and handholding are available.

    >>
    >> Give Mandriva 2008.1 a try. I'm very pleased with it and, based on my own
    >> experience, it's better than Ubuntu (of which I've used many versions of

    ^^
    over
    >> the years, including the first).
    >>
    >> Mandriva is RPM-based, just like Red Hat that you've already used. The
    >> repository is similar to that of Debian/Ubuntu, so there's nothing but
    >> messing about with tickboxes to manage software. There's so sudo and the

    ^^no

    >> command line is obsolete.

    >
    > I second that. I've been using Mandriva for several years now; it's a
    > pleasure to work with, and offers great hardware support. And indeed none
    > of my ordinary users have ever had to use the command line (although I use
    > it on a daily basis myself).


    Same here. What's interesting is that Mandriva hides it. To get a root shell,
    you must go through "configure your computer" (I just escape to tty1 because
    it's quicker).

    > Make sure of the following things though:
    >
    > - Get the full DVD version if possible; the Live CD version (Mandriva One)
    > appears to have a few rough edges.


    Anything specific? I used the Live CD. It also detected and enabled my graphics
    card out of the box (same with the rest of the hardware). Flash was included
    out of the box, which made me wonder about GPL compliance... :-S

    [snip /]
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjYvWoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo46lACcCWFRB6tlPW dVXzqhcfF8tL6o
    BskAoK29VgPCsLUDDBSD6tCWiZL2IZ6x
    =k5cH
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  5. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    Roy Schestowitz writes:

    > ____/ Singburi Sam on Tuesday 23 September 2008 05:40 : \____
    >
    >> I'm in the "big city" until tomorrow, but live far away so want to
    >> make my decision quickly while CD's and handholding are available.

    >
    > Give Mandriva 2008.1 a try. I'm very pleased with it and, based on my own
    > experience, it's better than Ubuntu (of which I've used many versions of the
    > years, including the first).
    >
    > Mandriva is RPM-based, just like Red Hat that you've already used. The
    > repository is similar to that of Debian/Ubuntu, so there's nothing but messing
    > about with tickboxes to manage software. There's so sudo and the command line
    > is obsolete.


    One hopes there is a sudo or its pretty useless/unsafe to ssh into for admin
    work. Or does it have an alternative?

    --
    I really think XP is going to be a flop. Between the glut of hardware out
    there (and slowing down of purchasing), and the fact that W2K is
    sufficient for so many casual users.... I just don't see it taking off.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  6. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    Richard Rasker wrote:

    >- After the initial installation, go to http://easyurpmi.zarb.org to add
    >extra package sources to the install, most notably the PLF sources for
    >multimedia support, accelerated video drivers and other proprietary stuff.
    >If something appears to hang during this step, just wait a few minutes --
    >the package manager is probably checking for updates, which blocks your
    >access to the package database during that time.


    Is that "easy" urpmi actually easy, now? I recall that as a major
    turn-off with Mandriva, when I tried it a few ears ago...


  7. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:31:54 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >>> I'm in the "big city" until tomorrow, but live far away so want to
    >>> make my decision quickly while CD's and handholding are available.

    >>
    >> Give Mandriva 2008.1 a try. I'm very pleased with it and, based on my own
    >> experience, it's better than Ubuntu (of which I've used many versions of
    >> the years, including the first).
    >>
    >> Mandriva is RPM-based, just like Red Hat that you've already used. The
    >> repository is similar to that of Debian/Ubuntu, so there's nothing but
    >> messing about with tickboxes to manage software. There's so sudo and the
    >> command line is obsolete.

    >
    > I second that. I've been using Mandriva for several years now; it's a
    > pleasure to work with, and offers great hardware support. And indeed none
    > of my ordinary users have ever had to use the command line (although I use
    > it on a daily basis myself).


    Interesting.
    I absolutely hated Mandriva Spring 2008.
    It seemed sluggish on my system and I dislike them shilling that PowerPack
    and Codenia stuff all the time.


    > Make sure of the following things though:
    >
    > - Get the full DVD version if possible; the Live CD version (Mandriva One)
    > appears to have a few rough edges.


    That might expalin it.
    I used the Live CD version.

    > - After the initial installation, go to http://easyurpmi.zarb.org to add
    > extra package sources to the install, most notably the PLF sources for
    > multimedia support, accelerated video drivers and other proprietary stuff.
    > If something appears to hang during this step, just wait a few minutes --
    > the package manager is probably checking for updates, which blocks your
    > access to the package database during that time.


    Good to know.
    I didn't realize that.

    > - Fire up the package manager (found in Mandriva's main configuration tool)
    > and install flash-player-plugin, mplayerplugin, win32-codecs, libdvdcss2,
    > lame and liblame0. You may want to go to the package source configuration
    > first, and disable the "CD" sources, so that Mandriva installs everything
    > directly from the Internet.


    I found the repositories (the stock ones) to be extremely slow compared to
    Ubuntu which are lightning fast.

    > - Open the device manager and confirm the choice of graphics card; if there
    > is a proprietary driver available, Mandriva will tell you at this point,
    > and ask you if you want to have it installed. Simply click Yes and wait for
    > the install to finish. I usually reboot after this (although it's not
    > really necessary) to make certain everything works OK.


    That worked for me.

    > - Finally, a minute or so after the next login, you will see a red
    > exclamation mark in the system tray, indicating available updates. Simply
    > click this icon and install the updates. Please note that the first time,
    > this may take a *long* time, because it's several hundred megabytes of
    > updates at least. After this, you're all set.


    It took a LONG, LONG time..
    Ubuntu had several hundred (257mb I think) as well and it went very fast.

    > Richard Rasker


    Different strokes I suppose.

    I would suggest Slackware for him.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  8. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On 2008-09-23, Singburi Sam wrote:
    >
    > Which Linux should I install? I'd described myself as a (very)
    > old hat regarding Unix in general, but an ignorant newbie
    > regarding modern Linuxes. I intend to do *nothing* sophisticated
    > with either hardware or software, and do *not* want to spend time
    > learning Install procedures. I'm relatively comfortable with
    > lower-level methods. (For example, I usually do 'vi /etc/passwd' or
    > 'vipw', etc. rather than 'adduser'!).
    >
    > I've been running an old RedHat system for several years; the
    > computer is failing so yesterday I bought a Compaq laptop; the
    > computer store installed a Ubuntu/WindowsXP dual-boot system for me.
    > I'd never even heard of Ubuntu, but figured it wouldn't
    > matter much. Now I'm faced with the choice of adapting to Ubuntu,
    > switching to Fedora, or ???. I noticed some messages
    > suggesting Fedora tends to be unstable. Should I go with
    > Fedora 8 rather than Fedora 9?
    >


    Fedora is "cooker" for RHEL. Based on that I wouldn't
    expect much out of it if you're just a "mundane desktop user".

    > (By the way, I could live without Windows at all, but it's
    > "free" to install. Are there good reasons for installing Linux
    > only, rather than a "dual-boot" configuration?)


    What do you need Windows for?

    Why not just run Wine/Crossover/Cedega or VirtualBox/wmare?

    >
    > I'm sure my question has been asked and answered many times
    > in many forms already -- so much so in fact that I'm afraid it will
    > just add to my confusion to wade through all the discussions.
    >
    > The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    > concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously, until


    ...it's pretty easy to re-enable this if you know what you're
    doing. If it's a problem then you're kind of the sort of user they're
    trying to keep the sharp objects away from.

    > I learned that my own password was good enough, apparently,
    > as long as I could spell 'sudo -i'. I decided it might be convenient
    > to have a more ordinary root login, but was unable to adduser
    > with id 0. This particular Ubuntu peculiarity may cause no trouble,
    > but I fear it represents a philosophy antithetical to mine which
    > I will grow to hate.
    >
    > Meanwhile I discovered neither csh nor tcsh was installed!


    The complaint that "X is not installed" is pretty lame for
    any Debian based distro. If something isn't there by default,
    it's pretty trivial to add it later.

    [deletia]

    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  9. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    chrisv wrote:

    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >
    >>- After the initial installation, go to http://easyurpmi.zarb.org to add
    >>extra package sources to the install, most notably the PLF sources for
    >>multimedia support, accelerated video drivers and other proprietary stuff.
    >>If something appears to hang during this step, just wait a few minutes --
    >>the package manager is probably checking for updates, which blocks your
    >>access to the package database during that time.

    >
    > Is that "easy" urpmi actually easy, now? I recall that as a major
    > turn-off with Mandriva, when I tried it a few ears ago...


    As from 2008.1, it's a matter of clicking two buttons and entering a root
    password. So yeah, I guess it fully deserves the qualification "easy" now.
    Although copy-pasting the urpmi.addmedia commands in a root shell weren't
    exactly rocket science either -- but OK, if you made a poor choice in
    repositories, you could end up with dog slow subsequent updates and
    software installs. Then again, I found that the PLF sources were pretty
    slow too lately ...

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  10. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On 2008-09-23, Singburi Sam claimed:

    > The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    > concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously, until
    > I learned that my own password was good enough, apparently,
    > as long as I could spell 'sudo -i'. I decided it might be convenient
    > to have a more ordinary root login, but was unable to adduser
    > with id 0. This particular Ubuntu peculiarity may cause no trouble,
    > but I fear it represents a philosophy antithetical to mine which
    > I will grow to hate.


    sudo passwd root

    Then you can su to root, or login as root on an alternate tty. But
    still no login on the graphical side.

    I don't like that concept either. Particularly if I want to resuce some
    things. Typing 'sudo' over and over is a royal pain, So I give root a
    password first thing.

    --
    Windows: In what position would you like to be taken today?

    ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
    http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

  11. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?


    On Sep 23, 12:40 pm, Singburi Sam wrote:
    > Which Linux should I install?
    > Thanks for any quick advice!


    I should have explained my needs better.
    Someone responded:
    > ... the command line is obsolete.


    The command line is what I use. Use of history scrolling,
    substitutions,
    etc. render the above comment baffling to me. My favorite programs
    are gcc, grep and a.out, if you know what I mean.

    >> The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    >> concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously ...

    > ...it's pretty easy to re-enable this if you know what you're
    > doing. If it's a problem then you're kind of the sort of user they're
    > trying to keep the sharp objects away from.


    Perhaps I should have mentioned that I've used 'adb -kw' to
    modify code in a running Unix kernel. We can debate whether
    I'm qualified to use sharp objects, but, to paraphrase someone
    in the news lately, it's been a long while since my Mother had to
    sew my name in my underwear!

    Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.
    It came up (with a desktop almost identical to Ubuntu's) and I
    was surprised to see *it* didn't have csh/tcsh either, even though
    I'd clicked most packages during the Install.

    I've downloaded an rpm for csh/tcsh and will probably be OK.
    Googling suggests Fedoras 1-7 and 9 all probably had csh/tcsh
    but, with no helpful response here, I went with 8 for the reason
    suggested in my first message.

    My question now is: Why no csh? (It's an academic question now,
    since I will install csh.) Many of us wouldn't want to rewrite various
    scripts and aliases. (I had the impression that Fedora 8's bash
    was slightly different (more cshish) than Ubuntu's but it still
    wasn't csh.) Diskspace used by csh is almost zero.

    Is this peculiar removal of csh another case of Post-modern Unix
    trying to keep sharp objects out of reach? :-)

    Sam

  12. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    Singburi Sam writes:

    > On Sep 23, 12:40 pm, Singburi Sam wrote:
    >> Which Linux should I install?
    >> Thanks for any quick advice!

    >
    > I should have explained my needs better.
    > Someone responded:
    >> ... the command line is obsolete.

    >
    > The command line is what I use. Use of history scrolling,
    > substitutions,
    > etc. render the above comment baffling to me. My favorite programs
    > are gcc, grep and a.out, if you know what I mean.


    a.out? Wow. Have you met Marti? He's familiar with turning swap on. You
    two would get on great.

    >
    >>> The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    >>> concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously ...

    >> ...it's pretty easy to re-enable this if you know what you're
    >> doing. If it's a problem then you're kind of the sort of user they're
    >> trying to keep the sharp objects away from.

    >
    > Perhaps I should have mentioned that I've used 'adb -kw' to
    > modify code in a running Unix kernel. We can debate whether


    Why?

    > I'm qualified to use sharp objects, but, to paraphrase someone
    > in the news lately, it's been a long while since my Mother had to
    > sew my name in my underwear!


    Sorry to hear that. What do you wear instead?

    >
    > Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    > I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    > difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.


    Yes. That sounds like a compelling reason to install an entire distro
    ....

    > It came up (with a desktop almost identical to Ubuntu's) and I
    > was surprised to see *it* didn't have csh/tcsh either, even though
    > I'd clicked most packages during the Install.


    Uh huh ...

    >
    > I've downloaded an rpm for csh/tcsh and will probably be OK.
    > Googling suggests Fedoras 1-7 and 9 all probably had csh/tcsh
    > but, with no helpful response here, I went with 8 for the reason
    > suggested in my first message.


    Did it not cross your mind to install csh from synaptic in Ubuntu? it#s
    certainly there in Debian.

    > My question now is: Why no csh? (It's an academic question now,
    > since I will install csh.) Many of us wouldn't want to rewrite various
    > scripts and aliases. (I had the impression that Fedora 8's bash
    > was slightly different (more cshish) than Ubuntu's but it still
    > wasn't csh.) Diskspace used by csh is almost zero.


    What on earth has disk space got to do with it?

    >
    > Is this peculiar removal of csh another case of Post-modern Unix
    > trying to keep sharp objects out of reach? :-)


    There is nothing sharp about csh. It's a mess and was replaced for a
    good reason.

    >
    > Sam


    --
    "What's wrong, (p)Rick? Were you defending the innocence of Hans "The
    Linux Butcher" Reiser, and now that he's about to give up the body
    you're embarrassed at being an idiot?"
    -- DFS in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  13. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On 2008-09-24, Singburi Sam wrote:
    >
    > On Sep 23, 12:40 pm, Singburi Sam wrote:
    >> Which Linux should I install?
    >> Thanks for any quick advice!

    >
    > I should have explained my needs better.
    > Someone responded:
    >> ... the command line is obsolete.

    >
    > The command line is what I use. Use of history scrolling,
    > substitutions,
    > etc. render the above comment baffling to me. My favorite programs
    > are gcc, grep and a.out, if you know what I mean.
    >
    >>> The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    >>> concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously ...

    >> ...it's pretty easy to re-enable this if you know what you're
    >> doing. If it's a problem then you're kind of the sort of user they're
    >> trying to keep the sharp objects away from.

    >
    > Perhaps I should have mentioned that I've used 'adb -kw' to
    > modify code in a running Unix kernel. We can debate whether
    > I'm qualified to use sharp objects, but, to paraphrase someone
    > in the news lately, it's been a long while since my Mother had to
    > sew my name in my underwear!


    Then don't bitch like a frightened little girl.

    >
    > Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    > I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    > difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.


    Bizarre. Simply Bizarre.

    [deletia]

    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  14. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Singburi Sam wrote:

    > On Sep 23, 12:40 pm, Singburi Sam wrote:
    >> Which Linux should I install?
    >> Thanks for any quick advice!

    >
    > I should have explained my needs better.
    > Someone responded:
    >> ... the command line is obsolete.

    >
    > The command line is what I use. Use of history scrolling,
    > substitutions,
    > etc. render the above comment baffling to me. My favorite programs
    > are gcc, grep and a.out, if you know what I mean.
    >
    >>> The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    >>> concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously ...

    >> ...it's pretty easy to re-enable this if you know what you're
    >> doing. If it's a problem then you're kind of the sort of user they're
    >> trying to keep the sharp objects away from.

    >
    > Perhaps I should have mentioned that I've used 'adb -kw' to
    > modify code in a running Unix kernel. We can debate whether
    > I'm qualified to use sharp objects, but, to paraphrase someone
    > in the news lately, it's been a long while since my Mother had to
    > sew my name in my underwear!
    >
    > Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    > I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    > difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.
    > It came up (with a desktop almost identical to Ubuntu's) and I
    > was surprised to see *it* didn't have csh/tcsh either, even though
    > I'd clicked most packages during the Install.
    >
    > I've downloaded an rpm for csh/tcsh and will probably be OK.
    > Googling suggests Fedoras 1-7 and 9 all probably had csh/tcsh
    > but, with no helpful response here, I went with 8 for the reason
    > suggested in my first message.
    >
    > My question now is: Why no csh? (It's an academic question now,
    > since I will install csh.) Many of us wouldn't want to rewrite various
    > scripts and aliases. (I had the impression that Fedora 8's bash
    > was slightly different (more cshish) than Ubuntu's but it still
    > wasn't csh.) Diskspace used by csh is almost zero.
    >
    > Is this peculiar removal of csh another case of Post-modern Unix
    > trying to keep sharp objects out of reach? :-)
    >
    > Sam


    Try a Stage 1 Gentoo install.
    You'll love it......


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  15. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On 2008-09-24, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Singburi Sam wrote:
    >
    >> On Sep 23, 12:40 pm, Singburi Sam wrote:
    >>> Which Linux should I install?
    >>> Thanks for any quick advice!

    >>
    >> I should have explained my needs better.
    >> Someone responded:
    >>> ... the command line is obsolete.

    >>
    >> The command line is what I use. Use of history scrolling,
    >> substitutions,
    >> etc. render the above comment baffling to me. My favorite programs
    >> are gcc, grep and a.out, if you know what I mean.
    >>
    >>>> The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    >>>> concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously ...
    >>> ...it's pretty easy to re-enable this if you know what you're
    >>> doing. If it's a problem then you're kind of the sort of user they're
    >>> trying to keep the sharp objects away from.

    >>
    >> Perhaps I should have mentioned that I've used 'adb -kw' to
    >> modify code in a running Unix kernel. We can debate whether
    >> I'm qualified to use sharp objects, but, to paraphrase someone
    >> in the news lately, it's been a long while since my Mother had to
    >> sew my name in my underwear!
    >>
    >> Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    >> I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    >> difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.
    >> It came up (with a desktop almost identical to Ubuntu's) and I
    >> was surprised to see *it* didn't have csh/tcsh either, even though
    >> I'd clicked most packages during the Install.
    >>
    >> I've downloaded an rpm for csh/tcsh and will probably be OK.
    >> Googling suggests Fedoras 1-7 and 9 all probably had csh/tcsh
    >> but, with no helpful response here, I went with 8 for the reason
    >> suggested in my first message.
    >>
    >> My question now is: Why no csh? (It's an academic question now,
    >> since I will install csh.) Many of us wouldn't want to rewrite various
    >> scripts and aliases. (I had the impression that Fedora 8's bash
    >> was slightly different (more cshish) than Ubuntu's but it still
    >> wasn't csh.) Diskspace used by csh is almost zero.
    >>
    >> Is this peculiar removal of csh another case of Post-modern Unix
    >> trying to keep sharp objects out of reach? :-)
    >>
    >> Sam

    >
    > Try a Stage 1 Gentoo install.
    > You'll love it......
    >
    >


    I've done several. It works fine - as long as you read the instructions

    --
    Tom Shelton

  16. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:33:22 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > On 2008-09-24, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Singburi Sam wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sep 23, 12:40 pm, Singburi Sam wrote:
    >>>> Which Linux should I install?
    >>>> Thanks for any quick advice!
    >>>
    >>> I should have explained my needs better.
    >>> Someone responded:
    >>>> ... the command line is obsolete.
    >>>
    >>> The command line is what I use. Use of history scrolling,
    >>> substitutions,
    >>> etc. render the above comment baffling to me. My favorite programs
    >>> are gcc, grep and a.out, if you know what I mean.
    >>>
    >>>>> The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    >>>>> concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously ...
    >>>> ...it's pretty easy to re-enable this if you know what you're
    >>>> doing. If it's a problem then you're kind of the sort of user they're
    >>>> trying to keep the sharp objects away from.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps I should have mentioned that I've used 'adb -kw' to
    >>> modify code in a running Unix kernel. We can debate whether
    >>> I'm qualified to use sharp objects, but, to paraphrase someone
    >>> in the news lately, it's been a long while since my Mother had to
    >>> sew my name in my underwear!
    >>>
    >>> Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    >>> I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    >>> difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.
    >>> It came up (with a desktop almost identical to Ubuntu's) and I
    >>> was surprised to see *it* didn't have csh/tcsh either, even though
    >>> I'd clicked most packages during the Install.
    >>>
    >>> I've downloaded an rpm for csh/tcsh and will probably be OK.
    >>> Googling suggests Fedoras 1-7 and 9 all probably had csh/tcsh
    >>> but, with no helpful response here, I went with 8 for the reason
    >>> suggested in my first message.
    >>>
    >>> My question now is: Why no csh? (It's an academic question now,
    >>> since I will install csh.) Many of us wouldn't want to rewrite various
    >>> scripts and aliases. (I had the impression that Fedora 8's bash
    >>> was slightly different (more cshish) than Ubuntu's but it still
    >>> wasn't csh.) Diskspace used by csh is almost zero.
    >>>
    >>> Is this peculiar removal of csh another case of Post-modern Unix
    >>> trying to keep sharp objects out of reach? :-)
    >>>
    >>> Sam

    >>
    >> Try a Stage 1 Gentoo install.
    >> You'll love it......
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I've done several. It works fine - as long as you read the instructions


    I know!

    I did a quasi stage 2 install compiling some stuff and using pre-built
    packages for other stuff (kde for example) and it only took me 2 times
    before I got it right.

    I missed a / in a path statement and copied somehing that should have been
    in /boot to another location instead.
    Also I found the kernel naming symlink stuff a little confusing at first.

    The Gentoo Handbook is an excellent tool.
    I had it up on my laptop while I installed on my main system.

    I learned a lot about how Linux works from that alone.
    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  17. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On 2008-09-24, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:33:22 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-24, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Singburi Sam wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sep 23, 12:40 pm, Singburi Sam wrote:
    >>>>> Which Linux should I install?
    >>>>> Thanks for any quick advice!
    >>>>
    >>>> I should have explained my needs better.
    >>>> Someone responded:
    >>>>> ... the command line is obsolete.
    >>>>
    >>>> The command line is what I use. Use of history scrolling,
    >>>> substitutions,
    >>>> etc. render the above comment baffling to me. My favorite programs
    >>>> are gcc, grep and a.out, if you know what I mean.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> The very first thing I learned about Ubuntu is that it lacks the
    >>>>>> concept of root password! This disconcerted me obviously ...
    >>>>> ...it's pretty easy to re-enable this if you know what you're
    >>>>> doing. If it's a problem then you're kind of the sort of user they're
    >>>>> trying to keep the sharp objects away from.
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps I should have mentioned that I've used 'adb -kw' to
    >>>> modify code in a running Unix kernel. We can debate whether
    >>>> I'm qualified to use sharp objects, but, to paraphrase someone
    >>>> in the news lately, it's been a long while since my Mother had to
    >>>> sew my name in my underwear!
    >>>>
    >>>> Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    >>>> I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    >>>> difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.
    >>>> It came up (with a desktop almost identical to Ubuntu's) and I
    >>>> was surprised to see *it* didn't have csh/tcsh either, even though
    >>>> I'd clicked most packages during the Install.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've downloaded an rpm for csh/tcsh and will probably be OK.
    >>>> Googling suggests Fedoras 1-7 and 9 all probably had csh/tcsh
    >>>> but, with no helpful response here, I went with 8 for the reason
    >>>> suggested in my first message.
    >>>>
    >>>> My question now is: Why no csh? (It's an academic question now,
    >>>> since I will install csh.) Many of us wouldn't want to rewrite various
    >>>> scripts and aliases. (I had the impression that Fedora 8's bash
    >>>> was slightly different (more cshish) than Ubuntu's but it still
    >>>> wasn't csh.) Diskspace used by csh is almost zero.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this peculiar removal of csh another case of Post-modern Unix
    >>>> trying to keep sharp objects out of reach? :-)
    >>>>
    >>>> Sam
    >>>
    >>> Try a Stage 1 Gentoo install.
    >>> You'll love it......
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I've done several. It works fine - as long as you read the instructions

    >
    > I know!
    >
    > I did a quasi stage 2 install compiling some stuff and using pre-built
    > packages for other stuff (kde for example) and it only took me 2 times
    > before I got it right.
    >
    > I missed a / in a path statement and copied somehing that should have been
    > in /boot to another location instead.
    > Also I found the kernel naming symlink stuff a little confusing at first.
    >
    > The Gentoo Handbook is an excellent tool.
    > I had it up on my laptop while I installed on my main system.
    >


    It definately helps to have a second machine with the page displayed. Gentoo
    is only officially supporting a stage3 install now - but, they still keep the
    docs for the stage1 and stage2 for those with special needs.

    Which, for my case, the stage 1's were necessary because I was building it for
    a couple of old PII systems for use as file server It took like a week to
    complete... But, it was really a pretty decent system (this was around the
    Gentoo 2004 release, I believe). Me and a bunch of co-workers used it to
    share a bunch of media files. I installed XFCE as well, and often used it as
    a desktop for a couple of things. It was a bit slow - but, useable for the
    things I used for

    --
    Tom Shelton

  18. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    On 2008-09-24, Hadron wrote:
    > Singburi Sam writes:
    >>
    >> Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    >> I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    >> difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.

    >
    > Yes. That sounds like a compelling reason to install an entire distro


    Wow. You are officially the nicest, most patient guy on Usenet - bar
    none.

    Sam claims to be an advanced Linux user and can't figure out a better
    way to get the shell he wants than installing a completely different
    distro - from DVD - that he bought to try to get csh?

    He's a kernel hacker but doesn't know how to download shell source and
    type make; make install? Or type apt-get install csh? Or run a
    synaptic front-end and clicky clicky with that mouse thingie?

    I call BS on the whole thing.

    Someone send Sam an MS Bob CD.

    Regards,
    Bob (not that one)

    P.S. I probably should have followed up to his post, but I killfile
    everything from Google Groups, so I bet that's how he's posting.
    Exhibit C.

  19. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    Bob Cortopassi writes:

    > On 2008-09-24, Hadron wrote:
    >> Singburi Sam writes:
    >>>
    >>> Brief update: I bought a Fedora 8 DVD thinking, at a mininum,
    >>> I could copy its csh to my new Ubuntu system. That was
    >>> difficult or impossible so I just installed Fedora entirely.

    >>
    >> Yes. That sounds like a compelling reason to install an entire distro

    >
    > Wow. You are officially the nicest, most patient guy on Usenet - bar
    > none.



    I'm not sure if you're out "sarcastic"'ing me there ....

    >
    > Sam claims to be an advanced Linux user and can't figure out a better
    > way to get the shell he wants than installing a completely different
    > distro - from DVD - that he bought to try to get csh?


    It's COLA. We've heard worse.

    >
    > He's a kernel hacker but doesn't know how to download shell source and
    > type make; make install? Or type apt-get install csh? Or run a
    > synaptic front-end and clicky clicky with that mouse thingie?
    >
    > I call BS on the whole thing.


    Yup.

    >
    > Someone send Sam an MS Bob CD.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Bob (not that one)
    >
    > P.S. I probably should have followed up to his post, but I killfile
    > everything from Google Groups, so I bet that's how he's posting.
    > Exhibit C.


    --
    "XP is a flop and when users are still asking for W98 it shows that they
    aren't all taken in with the MS hype."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  20. Re: Best simple Linux for not-so-novice user?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
    > On 2008-09-24, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:


    >> Try a Stage 1 Gentoo install. You'll love it......

    >
    > I've done several. It works fine - as long as you read the
    > instructions


    I've done a LFS into a chroot several times. Other than the build time,
    it's not exactly arduous, and it's certainly not the rocket science the
    Trolls seem to think it is.

    http://www.linuxfromscratch.org

    Anyone who makes it through that, will probably never have to ask
    another question about Linux ever again.

    By total contrast, attaining that level of familiarity with Windows is
    probably impossible ... even for MS engineers, given that none of them
    seem capable of fixing their own bugs.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    18:59:33 up 41 days, 16:12, 4 users, load average: 0.16, 0.10, 0.03

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast