Arch is fast because it is minimal, and just written very "tightly". There's no bloat.
Repos are essentially big compilations of software and their dependencies. You can add them really easily, and remove them.
I'll probably build a new pc soon. Do you have any reccomendations for that? Parts from manufacturers which work better with Linux?
What does normal computing look like in Arch, I can't really imagine how it looks like.
Rolling release VS 6mo schedule ? What are those?
I really like learning new things, and learning things untill I fully understand how everything is done. So I think when I install a distro I really want to know how everything is done, how it works. I doubt it's possible to understand everything, but that's my goal in most of the things I do. I don't know if it's a good thing or not. I don't know much about the Linux terminal and it's commands YET. I really want to learn more about it.
Thank you I'll definitely check out that dude!
Aha. Thank you
I started with FreeBSD:o
With college I don't have a ton of time to dedicate to figuring linux out, so as of right now its been slow going. It's not so much that I chose Mint to learn linux on, I chose it because I liked how it looked (cinnamon version). If learning linux is your main goal to begin with, at least in my mind, the major choice you need to make is, until you know how the system works what distro best fits you to begin with? For me that was Mint. There are some things in Mint that I don't like (namely its based on ubuntu), and when I have a better understanding of how Linux works, I plan on moving to Arch and making Linux my own, so that I don't have to deal with some of the shit that upsets me about Mint.
A prepackaged solution rarely fits a person exactly, that's the ethos of Linux and its true. When I'm to the point that customization is understood, I plan on making Linux my own instead of relying on a distro that tries to cater to a large group of people.
Here are a few resources to check out:
http://lifehacker.com/5889950/how-to-find-the-perfect-linux-distribution-for-you
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
http://www.tuxradar.com/content/how-choose-best-linux-distro
http://www.wikihow.com/Choose-a-Linux-Distro
Cheers!
Why don't you like Ubuntu? What's wrong with it? Mh yeah I'm still in school aswell.
Good point sir :)
Thank you very much mate!
But I still don't know what a Rolling release or a 6mo schedule is. Could you explain those to me ?
If you look through the linux topics on the forum, it's all explained in detail.
Basically, a rolling release distro (Arch, Gentoo, Tumbleweed, etc...) never has a version update, the packages are updated when they are deemed stable, independently from one another. Most of the time that works fine, and has the benefit of never having to install a system upgrade, but downside is that if there is a "poisonous" package (i.e. a package that hasn't been tested on all kinds of systems, no two linux users have the same operating system, because it's so free and personalized), your system may break. Not that that's a problem, because you can always select a previous initramfs from grub and your downtime literally is limited to the time it takes the system to reboot, and patches for the problem mostly come within 24 hours, but still, for critical installs whereby you really need the added functionality of the updated package, that's a bummer. On periodical release distros, there is a new version every couple of months, and that means upgrading your system, pretty much like a Windows upgrade, but it only takes a couple of minutes. On Fedora, which is a periodical release distro, there is an automated upgrade tool called FedUp, which makes the upgrade as painless as a daily package update, and that's a solution that kind of sits in the middle between the two systems, there is a system upgrade, but it's fully automated. Fedora has more features that are typical of rolling release models, because the package manager, yum, is very powerful, and for instance has a history function, so if a package update isn't working for you, you can simply undo that operation, without undoing the rest of the system update/upgrade. In traditional periodical release distros, that is not possible. The inverse is also possible with some distros, like with Debian and Fedora, there are always 3 versions of the distro available, the stable version ("release" version), the "testing" version, and the next version that is still being developed, which is called "Sid" in Debian and "Rawhide" in Fedora. A lot of community members run the Stable version for daily use/productivity, but know what "testing" packages are stable because of feedback by the community they're involved in, and expand the functionality or the performance of their "stable" install by using selected "testing" packages. Next to that, they also run an "unstable" version, which is actually pretty stable, but there can still be bugs and feature changes, so it's not recommended for a production environment. That "unstable" version is tested and improved by the community, until the board of the distro (which consists of the core maintainers) declared a lock on new features. At that point, final packaging of what they have so far is sorted, and that version becomes a release candidate, and is tested on stability for production. When the release candidate is released, new development for a new future version starts, and that is the new rawhide or sid branch. A released version has a certain support period, during which it is maintained en security updates and bug patches are pushed. For instance, during the support period of Fedora 18, the previous released version, which is supported up to six months after the second consecutive release (which isn't out yet, because that would be Fedora 20), the community will provide patches to make graphics drivers work as they should, will expand the functionality with new features that come out, and will provide security updates, mostly in the form of SELinux profiles for new application software that has come out, for instance, when a new Firefox comes out. And that support is a huge benefit of periodical release distros over rolling release distros, because in a periodical release distro, you'll get support as long as the version you have installed is supported, but in a rolling release distro, there is only support for fully updated systems, that means that only the last version of the day is supported. That's why in a production environment, periodical release versions with long term support are preferred. Some release versions are socalled LTS (long term support) versions, which are maintained and supported for a long period. That is true for the linux kernel, where almost every even decimal version is traditionally a LTS version, although there is no rule for that, the LTS kernel is selected based on objective criteria, and it's true for periodical release distros, for instance Ubuntu will provide an LTS in principal every 2 years, for the moment that's version 12.04 LTS, and that version is supported for 5 years, where others are only supported for 6 months, or for RHEL, which is the enterprise version for which Fedora serves as a test bed (like OpenSuSE is the test bed for SuSE Enterprise Edition), whereby RHEL has a 10 year support period, which is one of the reasons why RHEL is so popular in enterprises (because for instance a chip fab will invest many millions of dollars in a fab plant, and that runs on linux and is custom programmed, and such a fab plant lasts more than 5 years, so they need a long term solution, whereby they know that they're going to have guaranteed support for it). Because the code that comes with that support is open source, and available to anyone, some community distros that are used in extremely critical environments, like the LHC for instance, which has it's own distro based on RHEL and called Scientific Linux, can enjoy the benefits of a custom distro that has a guaranteed 10 year support cyclus, which in the case of experiments with large nuclear cannons is probably a very good thing.
As to which distro to use as a beginner, I would definitely recommend Manjaro. It's a modern distro, made with a different mind set than traditional distros, and it's Arch-based, but has it's own repos, so basically they hold back the occasional poisoned update packages from Arch for a more stable experience. Manjaro is a serious distro, it's partly upstream for Arch now, which means a lot. But in the end, choose your first distro with the knowledge that you'll be distro-hopping at some point in time, because that's just how it goes, the need for knowledge and discovery of new horizons is insatiable once you've become a linux user. The fact that linux brings so much freedom, makes that it's quite an experience, and you'll need some time to get used to the freedom and all the possibilities it offers. I switched to linux in 1996, and have only used windows for games since then, and never had a windows machine connect directly to a network without first passing through a linux machine, and especially when you still have to use windows for certain things, and see the logs of the linux box that filters the windows box on the network, you quickly learn why linux is so great. Linux is a buzzword now, it's hip to run linux and to know how to do CLI stuff in the terminal, and as you've seen on the forum, there is a lot of interest for linux, even after the initial hipster period: people want to use linux to be hip, but they stay with linux because they can do things they never knew they could do with a PC, and they want to be part of it, the freedom of such a powerful and transparent operating system inspires, the huge portfolio of development tools inspires, and instead of being passive users and software buyers, people get ideas about things they want to make for themselves, get together with other people with similar ideas, and projects are born. That will happen whatever distro you use or system you have, and on every level. Some may hate it that they have to clown around to get a game server working suited to their preferences, and mostly give up and just use any server that's available, but for a linux user, that thought doesn't even come up, because you have a gameserver set up in seconds, and it just works exactly as you want, with your textures, your maps, your rules. Do not fear the learning curve, even though there definitely is one, but it's not as much technical as it is psychological: linux is not hard to use and create with, of course you can make it hard by aiming really high, which is even then less hard than doing the same with a closed source environment, but most users learn through use and searching for answers on linux fora, and they learn pretty quickly, most people, whatever their age group, become linux use proficient in a matter of weeks, and after that, you learn extra what you want to know extra, everything is optional and really inviting, but not necessary for daily efficient use. That's the power of open source, and you'll learn that quickly enough once you start using it, whatever distro, whatever DE or WM, on whatever system.
You're brilliant! I've been reading your posts for a while now, and everytime I'm amazed with how much you know. I've been learning so much from your posts. You put so much effort in your comments, it's beautiful.
Thank you for your amazing advice! You have no idea how helpful this is for me :)
I don't like ubuntu for a few reasons:
- When I tried it a few years ago it was okay with the gnome interface and I kind of enjoyed it. Now with Unity though I can't stand it. Especially since I'm running this on a laptop, the eye-candy really sucks the battery to zero. Like I've said above, it can be changed, but I'm not in the mood to do so because of...
- Since I installed it those couple of years ago (and then moved back to windows, until now I should note that) there have been updates, and a lot of those updates have broken things. Sure they've been fixed after awhile, but with a non-rolling distribution they don't often get fixed right away. I don't want to deal with that happening in the future, and so I'd rather use an Arch base. That said, this is more of a problem I have with any distribution that isn't rolling release, but it still applies to Ubuntu. I like my problems being fixed instead of just dealing with them for a month or so, is that too much to assume of an operating system? I don't think so.
Maybe I'm just being super picky, but then again I'm allowed to be when the code is open source and that in the future I'll be able to do exactly what I want instead of having to deal with the above problems.
Ah ok. I understand it now. Those are some good reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who like Ubuntu, but for the real Linux dudes it's just not good enough.
Thank you
I second Zoltan's recommendation of starting with Manjaro.
But like I was saying use an USB stick to make LIVECD's out of different distro's ISO's to get a better look at them before installing. It is a way to distro hop before committing to the install.
Cheers! And good luck to you sir~ I am interested in which one you are going to use to..
Use an USB stick to make LIVECD"s ? Aren't a USB and a LIVECD two different things? Booting from a flashdisk, or burn the ISO to a CD/DVD. What are the different options on how to install a Linux distro?
A LIVECD was an old term used to describe what they were a CD with a distro install on it. Now they are distributed as "LIVECD'S" in the form of an ISO and are too large to fit on a CD so thus needing you to put them on a USB stick and boot from it. A LIVECD is also a stand alone version it will boot into your computer but not install so you can run the distro before installing it. To test it out, or see what software comes with the distro. It will work as your OS but not boot your native OS. By making a LIVECD on a USB stick. The distro's are usually contained in an ISO format.
Ok. How do you create a LIVECD? And, if you put it on an USB, you have to set the boot options in the bios to let it first check for an USB before it goes to the hard drive I guess? But do you need a special USB to boot a distro from it?
search "Unetbootin" and all your questions will be answered.
You need at least 2 GB USB stick, F12 brings up the boot menu at bootup, select hard drive: generic USB drive to boot from the USB stick without touching your BIOS settings.