Trying out Linux

EsX_Raptor

United States2802 Posts

April 13 2009 20:26 GMT

So I have a spare computer with windows 2k installed in it (I don't use that PC at all) and I thought about switching it to Linux to try it out for the first time (I'm a CS major and I feel I have to try Linux out and see how it is). I will be using it to program in C++/Java/Lisp and see if there's any difference in feel, reliability, etc.

Now my questions for those of you with experience with this OS, which distro should I download? I was thinking of installing Debian (First one that came up on the browser) and give it a try, but since I don't know a literal sh** about it, I thought of asking first.

It's got to be lightweight and really fast as this old computer can't squirt out much juice.

Thanks!

TheYango

United States47024 Posts

April 13 2009 20:36 GMT

Debian is a decent choice to start out with. Ubuntu or other Debian-derived OSes are decent to start with also, but some of them are more bloated, so on an old machine, they may not be as good to work with.

Zoler

Sweden6339 Posts

April 13 2009 20:50 GMT

Ubuntu is easiest I think

GL raptor!

b3h47pte

United States1317 Posts

April 13 2009 20:53 GMT

i have the latest version of OpenSUSE running on my mom's old laptop which has an Intel Pentium M 1.6ghz and 384MB of RAM. so a definite +1 for opensuse here (running XFCE as the desktop environment).

Doso

Germany769 Posts

April 13 2009 20:56 GMT

Ubuntu is great for a normal Desktop PC. It's so easy to setup, mantain etc.
Debian is a bit more complicated but probably better suited if you want to use the PC as a server.
(Open)Suse is good if you want something RedHat based. There are differences between Debian and the RedHat world.

If you only want to play around with Linux you can always go for a Live-CD like Knoppix, where you load the entire OS from the CD/DVD - no installating required.

MamiyaOtaru

United States1687 Posts

April 13 2009 22:53 GMT

Ubuntu is based on Debian but with a little more desktop friendliness. At least that's the idea. Lately though with stuff like PulseAudio and other stuff dragging it down I don't think so much of its friendliness.

Debian has been around forever, and will stay around. It also lets you do rolling updates easier than Ubuntu. I used it for 5 years or so and was happy with it.

Sirakor

Great Britain455 Posts

April 13 2009 23:33 GMT

Central to the linux philosophy is freedom, hence also the freedom of choice. There are thousands of distros out there, and only you can make the choice for yourself. I don't mean to sound pretentious, all I want to say is that there is plenty to choose from, and as tastes and requirements differ, what may be right for me may not be right for you. So in case you don't feel happy with what you have chosen, don't generalize, but give it a toss and try something else. If you don't want to spend much time faffing around getting things to work (which you shouldnt need to, especially with older hardware), you can try several and see which one you like best.

As for which distro to choose, distrowatch.com is a good place to get some info about various distros to get you started. As a beginner I'd recommend something vaguely mainstream (ie not too specialized), as it'll be easier to get support (e.g. Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, SuSE, etc).

Also, what do you mean by light weight, ie what hardware do you have? CPU speed isn't very important, but memory is (as far as the OS is concerned, compiling is a different matter, but the distro won't fix that). If you have 512 MB and more, you don't need to be concerned much, maybe leave out some of the bells n whistles but it should run fine. It'd recommend you install a distro in its default setup and see how you run, before fiddling around customizing your system, to avoid getting stuck with something and ditching it in the disappointment that you didnt even get a graphical interface up (if you go with the standard installations of the distros above, that'll be a non-issue). If you do find you the memory footprint of your naked OS with DE (=desktop environment) running too large, here are a couple of things you can do:

+ Show Spoiler +

Note, if you're just starting out, this may all be a bit too much to worry about, so just ignore it, but once you get a feel it may come provide some starting points of what to tinker with.

You can check your memory usage with the command

free -m

(the m argument displays MB instead of default kb). If without running any programs you start using swap space, then you need to do something. One of the biggest memory hog is likely to be a fancy DE, such as Gnome or KDE. They provide a very convenient, eye candy, bells n whistles package, but if you don't make use of the features, you may as well ditch it. I don't have a comparison to Vista, but KDE4/Gnome provide a lot more features and integration than the windows DE you are used to. Features start with a task bar, system tray, context menues and content previews and really have no end to them. If you want to strike a compromise between some comfort and memory usage, I'd recommend XFCE. This is still a DE with some basic features, and is kind of level with what you're used from WinXP etc. If you want to speed up the system even further, you can abandon the idea of a DE altogether and opt for a lightweight 'window manager'. That'll still give you a graphical interface that is multiwindow capable, and usually also some kind of start menu, but usually without things like task bars, context menues, fancy file managers etc. Anything with box in the name is good, take your pick: Fluxbox, Openbox, Blackbox, ...

If you're still low on RAM, consider using alternative tools for the job. A 64MB memory machine probably won't be your major work horse, so you can replace many progs by slimmed down, but fast es heck versions. E.g. Dillo as a webbrowser (instead of Firefox), and Ted as a word processor (instead of OpenOffice). You'll be amazed of the performance you can get out of old hardware with the right setup. Before faffing around a lot yourself, you can also save yourself most of the trouble, and try a specialised distro made for low-end hardware, that takes care of all that already, e.g. DamnSmallLinux (DSL), VectorLinux or PuppyLinux. I was extremely impressed by DSL last time I tried it ... I ran the LiveCD version, with is only 50MB in total (quick download btw, hint hint go try it) on an old Pentium (dont recall if I or II) laptop with 64MB ram. Remember live CD means the whole thing runs in RAM, no installation, no writing to disc. Yet, web browsing, email, word processing and what not was blazingly fast, even downloading extra apps (into RAM) from the repository could slow it down!

As for distros I can very much recommend Debian. For too many reasons than to cite here, but suffice it to say that I run it on 2 private machines and it was our choice for 2 dedicated servers that need to be reliable. A big pro is a lot of documentation available, though not so much in terms of forums, but readmes, docs etc so you might have to read a bit. Whilst in my experience the best to maintain, I think it's less beginner friendly for people that just made the switch from Windows, than some others. The main reason is that a lot of things are done the old or proper way, ie by editing config files by hand, instead of having a GUI (which in the end just writes your choices into the same config file). Can be a bit daunting at the beginning though.
If you want a bit more holding hands, I'd recommend Ubuntu (with the Gnome DE though, the KDE version Kubuntu usually lags behind a bit). It's also based on Debian, and has lots of info on the web.
SuSE is also a great distro for beginners, mainly due to the configuration tools (opposite of Debian in a way, pretty much everything can be moused and clicked). Whilst I used to recommend it, I think they have screwed up package management repeatedly which makes it rather annoying compared to the others, so I wouldnt try it first.
Mandriva I hear good things about, but I have never used it myself in depth, but you probably won't go wrong with it either.
If you were to look for a grandmother safe distro, for someone afraid of computers and not ready to leave the familiarity of Windows, you can try Xandros. Very easy, same menu layout, and can even stick the windows flag on the start menu so the granny will feel right at home ;-)
If you have very low-end hardware, you can either strip the above mentioned distros down (some also offer alternative installation media, e.g. Xubuntu is Ubuntu shipped with XFCE as default DE), or try a specialised distro such as vector linux, puppy linux or damn small linux.

In the end, you'll have to try yourself. A good way of trying distros and checking hardware compatibility, safe for a virtual machine, is to check if they have live CD/DVDs available. Just pop them in, boot it up and if everything works, you can safely install the proper distro. Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, SuSE, Fedore etc all have live CD available if I recall correctly. Knoppix (based on Debian) is also a very good LiveCD - handy to have at hand if your (Windows ;-) system dies.

Two last things: usually if something doesnt work the way you want it to be, it's either the user who screwed up or hasnt found the setting yet. E.g. a very common reaction to newbies seeing the Gnome DE for the first time (which btw has the task bar at the top - in its default configuration - so resembles a Mac layout), is that people are unfamiliar with it and conclude that Linux sucks. Now the desktop environment has nothing to do with Linux (you can choose from like 100 others), or if you dont want to change, you can simply set it to look like you want. ;-)

Finally, incompatibility and drivers. Hardware incompatibility is often blamed on Linux. Now ask yourself, what the poor developer should do, who writes linux drivers in his/her free time, if the manufacturer does not publish any specifications or documentation on the hardware at all, forcing the developer to reingineer everything to his best abilities, whilst instead the company provides a closed source binary driver for Windows. Sure the result may be the same, but it's hardly Linux that is to blame.

Ok, rant over, daily procrastination dosage fulfilled ... Enjoy the journey to the penguins and feel free to give me a shout if you need help :-)

A final comment, if you have a broad band internet connection, you may wish to download a network install medium instead of a regular disk. The reason is that the network disk only contains boot loader, kernel etc but nothing more, and gets the packages you need straight from the mirror. That way, unlike with conventional installation media you only download what you really need, plus it'll be up-to-date immediately. The normal install CD has to contain drivers etc for all sorts of systems which you download in vain, plus you have to update the system immediately after install. I can only vouch for the Debian netinstaller though, havent tried the others. i have to admit though, that the Debian installer is inferior to the likes of SuSE and Ubuntu, not in the result, but the user interface, especially for new users. And now ignore all my ramblings, download the first best thing you find and give it a shot ;-)

Sirakor

Great Britain455 Posts

April 13 2009 23:50 GMT

On April 14 2009 05:26 EsX_Raptor wrote:
see if there's any difference in feel, reliability, etc.
Thanks!

btw ...
that's totally up to you. There isn't one Linux. You can have a system you never knew could ever be that stable (usually at the expense of being at the cutting edge wrt packages), or be at the bleeding edge, have all features in all your programs as soon as the developer has finished coding it (and all its bugs) - and everything in between. It can have any feel you like ...

If you want to compare how different philosophies of development impact the OS, you need to put BSD into the equation too.

ibutoss

Australia341 Posts

April 14 2009 00:30 GMT

I work with centos. Although it might not be as suitable for a desktop, as opposed to server environment - I really don't know.