Image Map Image Map
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Linux: Upgrade version or reinstall?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    35,363
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    For desktop use, Linux obviously isn't for everyone. I expect that it will become a bit more popular as ARM begins to take over the low-end market. My headless mailserver's been running Armbian for many months between reboots (can't do anything about power failures). And there are all those devices with Busybox in them...

    For me, Linux is pretty much old stomping grounds. I was using Unix before there was a 5150. But then, the interface was strictly CLI, which helped develop my *nix mindset.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    2,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tipc View Post
    Even mainstream distros have their issues I'm sorry to say. That's been my experience. I'm running Fedora 32 on an Asus mini laptop and at times I want to smash the thing to pieces.
    Fedora is not a distro I would recommend to the average user looking to get into Linux. It's a bleeding edge rolling release distro that sometimes is completely replaced every 6 months, with support only being one or two years per release. Things change quickly and may not always work as intended, and may never be fixed and be completely dropped in the next version. It basically serves as a testing ground for code to be eventually incorporated into RHEL, and should be treated as such.

    I would only recommend Fedora to someone who has advanced Linux knowledge and is comfortable working entirely in Bash and/or the recovery console. Things can go badly during updates, and the GUI won't always be available, especially when dealing with misbehaving Xorg video drivers. I've run Fedora since version 2 way back in the early 2000s, and I've had more than a few instances where the system bombs itself, and requires a few hours of mucking around in Bash and/or the recovery console to get it up again.

    If you have a low power Netbook, I'd recommend something like xubuntu or OpenSuSE with the XFCE desktop environment. XFCE is lighter on resources and isn't trying hard like Gnome or KDE to compete with Apple and Windows UIs with useless flashing graphics that cause significant slowdowns on more limited machines.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Principality of Xeon W-2140B the Great State of Central New Jerky
    Posts
    2,353

    Default

    Linux is not UNIX. It's an OS based on UNIX principles. I guess that can be said about any other so called UNIX variant. Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, BSD's, etc. You can't even begin to critique, actually defend, Linux until you've had experience with the other UNIX variants. I don't. But I know when something is or isn't working.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Principality of Xeon W-2140B the Great State of Central New Jerky
    Posts
    2,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGaBiTe View Post
    ...I'd recommend something like xubuntu or OpenSuSE with the XFCE desktop environment.
    IIRC it's the first and thus far only distro that supports 32 bit uefi that I've tried. And Bionic Puppy, which would run live but not install. Ok this is a bit of an oddball, but it's Asus ...

    Kubuntu (am I getting that right?) wouldn't install. Really nothing else I've tried would either. I'll be branded a fascist or something equally odious but I was pretty happy when this thing had 8.1 on it. I got my start menu back via some utility I downloaded and there were no issues to speak of. Everything was ok until I decided to jump on the Windows 10 bandwagon, then immediately fell off the wagon when I forgot the password. So I (think) I have an absolutely virgin pristine W10 install saved somewhere, via Clonezilla, but would really like to find the 8.1 image specific to this machine. I may even pay a bit of money to restore that. But, despite all my gripes, Fedora is working well enough. And since I recently returned to using a flip phone (my neck and back and cognitive ability have suffered enough on account of owning (and smashing!) too many smart phones), this currently is the only internet capable unit I have. The internet the flip phone has is only for emergencies, looking up stores hours and other assorted nonsense, but I can actually watch youtube videos with data or wifi. The last flip phone I had 2 years ago was a total abortion, and made by LG. This one isn't half bad, surprisingly good audio. But ick made by Alcatel.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    35,363
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tipc View Post
    Linux is not UNIX. It's an OS based on UNIX principles. I guess that can be said about any other so called UNIX variant. Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, BSD's, etc. You can't even begin to critique, actually defend, Linux until you've had experience with the other UNIX variants. I don't. But I know when something is or isn't working.
    I would argue that 4.2BSD is, in fact UNIX, used much of the AT&T source code and required an AT&T software license. Somewhere, around here, I still have a 1978 BSD tape that was used for "Ernie" (Co-VAX, get it?). It is most certainly UNIX. One of the issues with original UNIX was that AT&T wasn't terribly interested in supporting other platforms than its own. BSD gained a lot of ground because of that. I ran BSD on an 11/750 back in the day and had little problem with it.

    And there were numerous 'ports of UNIX for everything from an IBM System/3 to a Cray or ETA super--and many 68K ports as well. All AT&T-licensed.

    Perhaps OpenBSD is closer to traditional UNIX, at least it feels that way to me. NetBSD has a similar feeling.

    Put it this way; if you're used to UNIX, you'll have little trouble getting a feel for things Linux. Yes, there are some major changes; systemd for one--I'm still not sure that I like it. The Linux variants are mostly different GUIs and not the internal operating system (which can be run without the GUI), so it's appropriate calling them "distributions".
    Last edited by Chuck(G); October 15th, 2020 at 09:28 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    2,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    systemd for one--I'm still not sure that I like it.
    SystemD is a cancer that threatens the entire Linux ecosystem. It was originally supposed to be a replacement for sysVinit, but it has slowly feature creeped like a cancer far beyond its original design intention. It's so large at this point that it's basically a second Linux kernel, and is run by people who want to basically control everything from within SystemD and give little else to anyone outside. They've also on multiple occasions tried to commandeer projects from other developers and force them into the SystemD ecosystem so that said programs would no longer work with the older sysVinit system.

    It's not a system good for anyone, it makes it a lot harder to do previously mundane tasks like reading logs. Many logs, including the main system log are now binary files and require a special journalctl program to read, making it a lot more irritating to do.

    Not to mention bugs, it's full of bugs, some of which are quite serious. In the past it was easier to patch things because you had smaller daemon programs that could be easily patched. SystemD is a huge monolithic monster and getting it fixed is like pulling teeth.

  7. #27

    Default

    Fortunately, there's systemd-free distros out there that are reasonably well-supported. Because yes, giving the creator of the most broken and janky Linux sound system out of all the broken and janky Linux sound systems the reigns over the entire rest of the core system was and remains a self-evidently terrible idea.
    Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
    Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/SH-09/MT-32/D-50, Yamaha DX7-II/V50/TX7/TG33/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini/ARP Odyssey/DW-8000/X5DR, Ensoniq SQ-80, E-mu Proteus/2, Moog Satellite, Oberheim SEM
    "'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling." - Bjarne Stroustrup

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Principality of Xeon W-2140B the Great State of Central New Jerky
    Posts
    2,353

    Default

    I just don't understand with so many distributions why one hasn't arisen that concentrates on compatibility and shuns feature bloat. If there is such a tight distro that has a reputation for running effortless on nearly everything, please let me know.

    There's something about Ubuntu mainly, but perhaps not so much it's derivatives, that bugs me. Perhaps it was some time ago when I made the jump from 8.04 irrc to 12?... the preexisting windows installation became totally unusable. Kubuntu, on units that would take it, was refreshing as it had the same old familiar window-y look and feel. I can't remember if I had problems w/it or not on more recent hardware, probably not. I'm currently running Fedora 32 on everything (that has Linux) and it's a lot better on newer hardware. It just might be my gut keeps rubbing against the touchpad and my cursor winds up wherever, and large portions of texts repeatedly disappear. Maybe not the fault of the OS. I just never seemed to have these problems on a windows machine.

    Adopting a new OS will usually take some getting used to. But to shun the traditional Windows look and feel, way of doing things, is just stupid. There's nothing wrong with familiarity (ok, wasn't my gut that time. Maybe this unit is just way to small for my hands, and as we know strange things happen at the 1-2 point). If someone wants to try Linux and encounters nothing but frustration, you've lost a convert.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    35,363
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    If I had my druthers, I'd probably use OpenBSD, but there are things such as VirtualBox that don't seem to be supported--and that's important.

    As far a Windows "look and feel", well, doesn't that change with versions? Is Win95 L&F the same as Win10? I nudged my lovely wife from XP to Xubuntu a couple of years ago, and she seems to be fine with it. She does have one or two old Win32-based applications, but that's what Virtualbox is for.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Principality of Xeon W-2140B the Great State of Central New Jerky
    Posts
    2,353

    Default

    No it hasn't changed in any significant manner. The desktop always has and still is occupied by icons. You can't do that with Fedora or Ubuntu or Pop! OS. Some distros maintain that aspect. If there intention was to radically alter the user interface they should introduce something truly innovative, and not tie my hands. If it ain't broke don't pretend you've fixed it.

    Kubuntu was ok in that respect. Maybe I'll go back to that on machines that can take it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •