Linux - to install or not to install?

I've been thinking about this for a while. I would pull it off for nerd cred, but the Linux installation may impair my ability to use certain applications, such as Doom Builder. I would dual-boot, but I only have a 20GB hard disk. So should I install Linux or keep WinXP? I might dual-boot when I get a bigger disk (at least 150GB) and at least 1 GB of RAM.

I didn't put it in blogs because it's more of a question than a journal.

I would honestly go for the dual-boot approach; I find that a comfortable Linux install (Ubuntu or a variant) would need a little over ten gigabytes to use without disk space worries. And that'd cut in to your XP space.

While WINE will help you run the majority of your Windows-based apps, I found it very hard to run Doom Builder through it because of all the crazy stuff it does with graphics. (Strangely, Red Faction ran perfectly.)

Or bypass dual-booting and repartitioning entirely and get VirtualBox...

CODOR said:

Or bypass dual-booting and repartitioning entirely and get VirtualBox...

this. This is what I use. if you have a processor that can do Virtualization, it's almost 95% native speed in virtualbox now. Linux is great but the organization of distros are way too crazy for me to tolerate. There's not enough manpower yet for linux distros and linux communities in general to be considered by companies to support fully (that includes source code- because of X11 fuckery, one driver that works for one X.org version won't work for the next one...)

I disagree, virtualisation just keeps Windows around and gives you an easy way out so when something becomes "too hard" on Linux you don't force yourself to learn how to do it.

That means yes, there is a learning curve. At times you will be very lost and answers on how to do seemingly simple things will evade you for days/weeks/months before someone on a forum or IRC goes "oh that's easy" and teaches you something they learnt 4 years ago.

Doom Builder 1 works mostly fine on Linux, there are some graphics oddities, there is a thread about it in the DB section. Forget using DB2 ever again. ZDBSP seems not to work though I've never bothered to look into it as ZenNode is fine for me. XWE plays happily and still crashes as much as it does on Windows. SlumpEd can be made to mostly work though I find it unreliable.

PrBoom, PrB+, ZDoom, Eternity and Chocolate all have native Linux ports. There is no OpenGL PrBoom. GZDoom SVN is sporadically patched on DRD Team forums to run on Linux and depends on your video hardware - it chucks a spaz with ATI last time I checked.

I long tired of trying to convert people to Lunix, it's either your bag or it's not. However I strongly recommend giving it a serious go. Forget all other distros, as a beginner you want Ubuntu, simply because over half the desktop Linux world uses it so there's a massive amount of support and knowledge available for it. In fact I've tried several other distros from simple old Debian to complex Archlinux and Ubuntu is such a good mix of updated software, polished settings and stability that I keep on coming back to it.

I don't get how someone can call Arch Linux complex and Debian simple. Arch is one of the most straightforward distros out there (Slackware is the only other major distro as simplistic as Arch I can think of). Debian is the complex one and Ubuntu even more, with all the smarty-automation/BFU-friendly stuff included. Yes, you have to have a little knowledge to master Arch Linux, but that doesn't make it complex.

I'd reccomend Ubuntu for a beginner too, my fiance's anti-technic sister has it installed on her laptop and can operate it without any hassles :-)

If you need Windows to use your applications, stick to it. If not, you can consider Linux, but keep in mind that it's not some miraculous cure to all your problems in life.

That's all there is to it, really. I'd avoid installing just because it's unnecessary, and doesn't really enlarge your penis no matter what Stallman tells you.

Grubber said:

my fiance's anti-technic sister has it installed on her laptop and can operate it without any hassles :-)

Ah yeah...the usual "my tech-illiterate grandma/girlfriend/aunt has it installed and can use it with no problem" tirade. Did she install it alone, for starters?

It may be true, but better tell the whole truth: only under very restrictive assumptions and conditions (e.g. powers it up, autologins, fires up a browser, surfs, finishes surfing and powers it down), and is not otherwise responsible for ANY aspect of its maintenance or administration, which is much, much harder on any Linux distro than on Windows.

I have seen ex tech-illiterates going as far as mastering device removal and some even -gasp- venturing up to the point of using the control panel and running .exes to install applications (which can be a very bad thing as we know), but on Linux? I can't fathom said grandma opening up a terminal window and using sudo apt-get to install some library or compile dependencies.

[DISCLAIMER]YES, THAT'S THE PREFERRED WAY OF DISTRIBUTING AND INSTALLING STUFF ON LINUX DISTROS, BY AND LARGE, FOR REASONS BEYOND THE POINT, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTIME SOON[/DISCLAIMER]

I only agree on that: if a user is supposed to be operating in a sandbox with ZERO administrative powers or responsibilities, then yeah, Linux is as good as Windows to the complete novice (especially one that does not intend/is not supposed to do his own administration), perhaps even better because of reduced risk of infection from malware and viruses. At least Ubuntu's installation is sufficiently automated so that even the eponymous grandma could install it (even going through the gory partitioning part), but could she ever go beyond using what's already included in the distro? I doubt it.

You even teach a total fucktard and /b/tard how to download and install warez on his windows "b0x", but on Linux? You'll lose him when you'll say "type sudo apt-get....". Hello?! Goodnight!

However a mid-tier windows user != a mid tier linux user. These need to take entirely different paths, and there's quite the geekiness gap between them.

Super Jamie said:

There is no OpenGL PrBoom.

$ grep video ~/.prboom-plus/prboom-plus.cfg
videomode "OpenGL"

Linux is like that retarded kid you meet at your family reunion. Everyone listens to what he has to say, and at the end of the day, he might get a pat on the head, but no one takes him seriously.

Essentially, it depends on what you ultimately want to do with that computer. Linux is only useful for servers or people who don't do anything fun with computers. I put linux on my laptop because my laptop is crappy, and the newest game it can run is Quake 3 (see also: Open Arena, CUBE) I don't use it much for gaming as much as I do schoolwork. It works great for my schoolwork, i do all my papers, spreadsheets, math, web browsing and other boring things with it. I also listen to music on it. I wouldn't have Linux on that computer If I intended to do anything else beyond that.

Maes said:

post

I agree with all of this. It's weird that linux is for my grandma yet I can't get sound to work very well and the resolutions are wonky, but she's hard of hearing and legally blind anyway, so it's a perfect match! </troll>

But in all seriousness, I've dealt with linux since 2004 and I still find myself going back to windows to get actual work done. I just can't shake MS Office.


EDIT: and before anyone else links it: http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/

Never used Linux before, then I put Slax on a pendrive and got the hang of it in 2 days.

It's only 200MB so it's a good choice for a trial run.

When I manage to get some permanently free disk space I'll probably go with Ubuntu.

Of course it's completely useless to me as a day to day OS. I'll only use it for some microcontroller software dev stuff. Patrick already summed up my reaction to Linux quite well.

Yeah - Linux is great for programmer types, and there are plenty of distros that put a grandma-friendly shell on, so it can be popular with the casual crowd. However, it seems to forget the entire middle, the power users, who aren't keen on learning an entirely new system. There just aren't enough resources available to learn to do what would seem to be common tasks - like updating a device driver manually.

Super Jamie said:

Forget all other distros, as a beginner you want Ubuntu, simply because over half the desktop Linux world uses it so there's a massive amount of support and knowledge available for it. In fact I've tried several other distros from simple old Debian to complex Archlinux and Ubuntu is such a good mix of updated software, polished settings and stability that I keep on coming back to it.

This is all true, although you may want to go for Xubuntu if your RAM is under 1Gb like you say it is.

Jodwin said:
If you need Windows to use your applications, stick to it. If not, you can consider Linux, but keep in mind that it's not some miraculous cure to all your problems in life.

That's one of the reasons why I recommended virtualization. If you find that Linux doesn't solve the world's problems, then you can just delete the disk image without losing 10GB or more to an unused Linux partition. That and there's probably fewer driver issues with the emulated hardware.

And before anyone mentions lack of games on Linux: chocolate-doom runs there, what more do you need?

That's all there is to it, really. I'd avoid installing just because it's unnecessary, and doesn't really enlarge your penis no matter what Stallman tells you.

You mean "GNU/Penis"...

Maes said:

Ah yeah...the usual "my tech-illiterate grandma/girlfriend/aunt has it installed and can use it with no problem" tirade. Did she install it alone, for starters?

Why would she do that? She wouldn't install Windows either.

Maes said:

It may be true, but better tell the whole truth: only under very restrictive assumptions and conditions (e.g. powers it up, autologins, fires up a browser, surfs, finishes surfing and powers it down), and is not otherwise responsible for ANY aspect of its maintenance or administration, which is much, much harder on any Linux distro than on Windows.

Care to tell me what is so much, much harder? Besides, she wouldn't do any administration on Windows either, again.

Maes said:

I have seen ex tech-illiterates going as far as mastering device removal and some even -gasp- venturing up to the point of using the control panel and running .exes to install applications (which can be a very bad thing as we know), but on Linux? I can't fathom said grandma opening up a terminal window and using sudo apt-get to install some library or compile dependencies.

Ah yeah, the usual "you can't do anything without touching terminal and compiling stuff on Linux" tirade.

Maes said:

I only agree on that: if a user is supposed to be operating in a sandbox with ZERO administrative powers or responsibilities, then yeah, Linux is as good as Windows to the complete novice (especially one that does not intend/is not supposed to do his own administration), perhaps even better because of reduced risk of infection from malware and viruses. At least Ubuntu's installation is sufficiently automated so that even the eponymous grandma could install it (even going through the gory partitioning part), but could she ever go beyond using what's already included in the distro? I doubt it.

Her case precisely.

Patrick said:

Linux is like that retarded kid you meet at your family reunion. Everyone listens to what he has to say, and at the end of the day, he might get a pat on the head, but no one takes him seriously.

On workstations, true. Everywhere else Windows is the retarded kid, actually.

Patrick said:

Essentially, it depends on what you ultimately want to do with that computer. Linux is only useful for servers or people who don't do anything fun with computers. I put linux on my laptop because my laptop is crappy, and the newest game it can run is Quake 3 (see also: Open Arena, CUBE) I don't use it much for gaming as much as I do schoolwork. It works great for my schoolwork, i do all my papers, spreadsheets, math, web browsing and other boring things with it. I also listen to music on it. I wouldn't have Linux on that computer If I intended to do anything else beyond that.

I do fun stuff with computers AND use Linux. How is that possible?

To sum it up, just install it and make your mind yourself. All this Internet OS war discussion is just... bullshit.

Honestly, I'm just being a bit of a troll there. Linux is as good as any operating system, there is simply a learning curve. Windows just makes things so damn easy that you forget how to do some tasks on a computer that you really ought to know. I tend to agree with grubber, if you're not sure, try it out! My recommendation is Ubuntu since its been the best distro I've used thus far.

And did anyone else notice, HOLY SHIT IT'S GRUBBER.

I've been using Ubuntu for maybe a month now, and after the novelty of omg I'm using linux I'm not too impressed. Can't really think of anything I can do there that I can't do in windows. Oh, and being unable to play games nor watch youtube...

I'd definitely like linux better if this were my old xp box, but I have 7 now and have found all the people bitching about it are full of shit and don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Maybe I just need to try one of the "real" distros.

I'm half-considering trying hackintosh/osx86 (I'm not going to plop $3000 down something I MIGHT not end up using) to see if I take a liking to that since neither windows nor linux has truly done it for me.

BrokeAndDrive said:

Oh, and being unable to ... watch youtube...

Sounds like PEBKAC to me.

BrokeAndDrive said:

I'm half-considering trying hackintosh/osx86 (I'm not going to plop $3000 down something I MIGHT not end up using) to see if I take a liking to that since neither windows nor linux has truly done it for me.

Done that. It was kinda painful to get it up and running (in fact I'm still not completely done), but if you have the time it takes...

Patrick said:

And did anyone else notice, HOLY SHIT IT'S GRUBBER.

Uhh... yeah, it's me, thank you :-)

Grubber said:

I don't get how someone can call Arch Linux complex and Debian simple.

Because Arch, after a setup you need to read documentation for, drops you at a commandprompt with almost no packages installed and says "go forth and configure". Debian hands you a graphical desktop with many helper apps and handy presets.

Yes, Arch is simple if you know what you're doing as far as drivers/packages/init and take the time to learn the (excellent) distro-specific tools. If you've never used Linux before, it would probably seem impossible without help and at least some prior knowledge.

Grubber said:

Sounds like PEBKAC to me.

Or Linux is just a piece of shit that STILL can't handle modern technology.

I was too late to say "inb4SuperJamie"...

Ninjalah said:

I was too late to say "inb4SuperJamie"...

Likewise, I was too late to say "in b4 Maes' ceaseless repetitive crusade against the alleged ease with which some people claim they can anything other than a pre-installed copy of Windows XP SP3 behind a firewall with 50 anti-virus and anti-spyware apps".

Super Jamie: Since when user-friendly == simple? There are many things user-friendly and complex (e.g. cars) as there are many things not user-friendly and simple (e.g. unicycle).

To quote Wikipedia unicycle article, "Unicycles resemble bicycles, but have less complexity." Now you can just replace "unicycles" with "Arch Linux" and "bicycles" with "Debian" and still have a valid statement.

Super Jamie said:

Likewise, I was too late to say "in b4 Maes' ceaseless repetitive crusade against the alleged ease with which some people claim they can anything other than a pre-installed copy of Windows XP SP3 behind a firewall with 50 anti-virus and anti-spyware apps".

This happens often, so it's expected. :P. I propose Maes includes a tl;dr with all posts. :D?

Grubber said:

Super Jamie: Since when user-friendly == simple? There are many things user-friendly and complex (e.g. cars) as there are many things not user-friendly and simple (e.g. unicycle).

To follow your car analogy: Ubuntu is a regular pre-built showroom vehicle. Arch is the component parts of the vehicle with a concise "how to build your new car" wiki. Knowledge of at least some tools is assumed. Despite the fact all the instructions are there, many people will still find the process of building a car daunting and some will just plain fuck it up and go back to their previous showroom-bought model.

Actually that's Gentoo you just described. And that still doesn't make it complex, just not appropriate for non-car-mechanic people.

Things may look complex from your point of view, but when you know a little more about inner workings and design of a Linux-based OS you'll see the real simplicity inside.

Ninjalah said:

This happens often, so it's expected. :P. I propose Maes includes a tl;dr with all posts. :D?

At most I will write a Way of Maes article about it.

Grubber said:

Things may look complex from your point of view, but when you know a little more about inner workings and design of a Linux-based OS you'll see the real simplicity inside.

I agree completely that once you get into it, Linux is (mostly) straightforward and indeed it's that control over what my computer is actually doing that attracted me to tinkering with it in the 90s and has kept me using it full-time for the last 4 years.

But for someone who has no experience, I can understand that a default Arch install probably does appear somewhat less intrinsic than Debian/Ubuntu.

Maes said:

At most I will write a Way of Maes article about it.

I will say I'm surprised you didn't say you were gonna "RIP AND TEAR" me to death or something. :D Please don't.

CODOR said:

That's one of the reasons why I recommended virtualization. If you find that Linux doesn't solve the world's problems, then you can just delete the disk image without losing 10GB or more to an unused Linux partition. That and there's probably fewer driver issues with the emulated hardware.

You could just as well just install Ubuntu "inside Windows" (burn it to CD, plop the CD in and install in Windows).