Worth it to use linux?

[Simon]

that's what I thought, oh well might end up reinstalling

[Ed.Kloonk]

You have the wrong password. Blast out your shadow file to reset the root password. Google it.

Easy to do.

[GeoffS]

Ony thing is I can't log in and there don't seem to be any forums I can ask on. I setup with just a root account and I was never told the root username and so can't get in and no root does not work. The mailing lists are a mystery to me, will have to do  some reading around.

By default, root is created with no password and you can't login directly as root, you have to sudo to gain privileges.
I take it you didn't create another user when prompted to? The normal way to become root is to use the sudo command from a non root account. This will prompt for a password which is your user password, not root's password.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Geoff is right. My Linux doesn't speak the Sudo dialect. Not happily anyway.

[Monkeh]

Ony thing is I can't log in and there don't seem to be any forums I can ask on. I setup with just a root account and I was never told the root username and so can't get in and no root does not work. The mailing lists are a mystery to me, will have to do  some reading around.

By default, root is created with no password and you can't login directly as root, you have to sudo to gain privileges.
I take it you didn't create another user when prompted to? The normal way to become root is to use the sudo command from a non root account. This will prompt for a password which is your user password, not root's password.

No, that's an Ubuntu specific brain-dead method, not the usual way.

[GeoffS]

Ony thing is I can't log in and there don't seem to be any forums I can ask on. I setup with just a root account and I was never told the root username and so can't get in and no root does not work. The mailing lists are a mystery to me, will have to do  some reading around.

By default, root is created with no password and you can't login directly as root, you have to sudo to gain privileges.
I take it you didn't create another user when prompted to? The normal way to become root is to use the sudo command from a non root account. This will prompt for a password which is your user password, not root's password.

No, that's an Ubuntu specific brain-dead method, not the usual way.

Sorry. must have the brain stuck on Ubuntu at the moment. I normally use Centos which has a real root login 

[Simon]

I didn't set up a user account, am reinstalling now so did one just in case. The instructions did say I didn't have to do a user account.

[Monkeh]

I didn't set up a user account, am reinstalling now so did one just in case. The instructions did say I didn't have to do a user account.

The docs assume a certain level of knowledge with Debian. You do not want to use the root account for daily use.

You do, however, want to make very sure you can login as root or you can't install anything.

[Simon]

Well I'm in. Nope, the install promps specifically said that I did not have to setup a user account until later if I didn't want to do it now and I could just run with the root user but it was not recomended. They failed to point out this would lock me out of the system unless maybe i know some black magic

[Monkeh]

Well I'm in. Nope, the install promps specifically said that I did not have to setup a user account until later if I didn't want to do it now and I could just run with the root user but it was not recomended.

As I said: You do not want to use the root account for daily use. You can, if you're feeling dumb..

They failed to point out this would lock me out of the system unless maybe i know some black magic

Because it does no such thing.

[Simon]

Well I'm pretty sure of the password i chose but I could not log in as the root user. I'm in now anyhow.

[Ed.Kloonk]

 

[glee]

After reading this thread I'm still not sure I have any clear(er) idea about the pros and cons of attempting to run individual EE software application under linux (and there is no way that I will switch operating systems).

Is there anything which polarises people faster than a discussion of pet operating systems? I followed the debate in Australia about chucking kids off ships (supposedly) in a n attempt to gain citizenship. Didn't come close ;-)

[Simon]

If you decide to use linux make sure you have a windows backup and don't bother with a distro based on another distro that is based on another distro. Ubuntu is popular, no idea why, I cal it the equivalent ofvista. Getting a distro based off it is asking for trouble!

[poptones]

Simon, this is going to sound really bad, but I have to ask...

You were just talking about having to reinstall because you didn't know you had to create a user account. This would indicate that you felt it appropriate to use a linux install (or any operating system) as a "root" user, which is a giant security no-no.

Where exactly does this dislike of ubuntu come from? Honestly, it really doesn't appear you're all that experienced with any of it. Ubuntu and debian in general are far more friendly for new users than virtually any rpm managed distro. I've been using linux more than a decade, and I hate delving into rpm hell.

[Simon]

I followed the install instructions to the letter, an error was made in the statement. I've not used debian much but it seems to be the most solid i have seen yet.

Ubuntu, well clearly the fore runner of windows 8! no start menus no nothing, I had to search for everything. The system was horribly slow and a driver for my 6 year old laptops graphics was not available so it was slower than vista. The forum users were so far up their own asses that clearly they were not interested in helping. It permanently dissabled my wifi, including the use of any usb adapters (luckily with debian I can use my modile phone with no drivers). On changing the "these" the shut down button dissapered, I had to shut the computer down by searching for the exe that runs the stutdown sequence. Basically it was tottally shit.

I then tried mint based off ubuntu, the performance was awful even on my main quad core PC, various thing did not work, it would only see one of my HDD's at a time, pdf printing did not work, another disaster. Linux always makes prmises and hen breaks them, they should not dear criticize windows because frankly they are even buggier. If you have a 3rd hand system who will know how to fix it. I can't see te point of all these distros, they mostly work and look like the one they are based on but you just have more problems and no one will know which part needs fixing

[elliott]

Ubuntu and debian in general are far more friendly for new users than virtually any rpm managed distro. I've been using linux more than a decade, and I hate delving into rpm hell.

Using RPMs isn't as bad as it used to be, modern package managers have helped a lot. In the days of RedHat 9, there were no package managers that pulled in RPMs from repositories and automatically solved dependencies, but now there is yum. It is every bit as easy as using the Debian system. It is rather slow and clunky though, which apt is guilty of too.

[poptones]

Simon, this is why live distros exist. I have no idea what hardware you're using, but it sounds like you may be using off the shelf systems? Of course the laptop is. But if you would run some of these distros live you would be able to get an idea of how they're going to interact with your system without making any permanent changes.

There is documentation out there, but you do need a bit of basic understanding of systems. So far as the unity desktop, that's just a personal preference - if you don't like it you can always use (for example) ubuntu 10.04, which had a very nice version of gnome 2. I'm afraid ANY "new" distro you use, however, is going to require some relearning so far as the desktop goes because gnome has moved to gnome 3. I'm not sure which is more hated - gnome 3 or unity - but it seems to be shaking out a bit. I personally love unity, I was using a desktop similar to that for more than a year before this version finally was usable enough to convince me to switch to "ootb" unity. There are still a couple of bugs, but it's evolving quickly. I've used and supported a variety of systems and I still prefer ubuntu.

There's a wide variety of distros out there but they all use the same underlying code. Ubuntu funds development of some things, just like Novell funds development of some things and IBM as well. This is why there's diversity out there - anyone is free to evolve it as they like. This prevents the monoculture you have with OS X and Windows and makes the platform more robust. Complaining about the diversity of linux makes about as much sense as complaining about the variety of automobiles one can buy; if you don't like choice, you can always choose a platform like Apple where all your choices are made for you, and you can always ride the bus.

And yeah, the ubuntu user forum can be a bad experience. But I recall when I was starting out and I can honestly say the Mandrake and Suse forums were not any better. Support forums tend to attract two kinds of people: those who are complete noobs and need answers NOW, and those who believe they know all there is to know but have no life so they hang about in the forum. Those who know what they're doing have no need to be there, they're too busy actually doing it. I find the best avenue for answers is google.

[Simon]

my point is that it would be better to have less higher quality distros than a sea of them few of which deliver as promissed. The debian website is the first I see that looks serious on rock solid software rather than mamby pamby social statements like "we believe software should be free". I'm happy to pay a reasonable amount for software that actually works as oposed to using free software that does not deliver. I don't understand why people base distros off ubuntu if they could just base them off debian, curely a better way of doing it.

Yes I'm a linux noob but then many distros promise to be beginner friendly (as in windows is beginer friendly ?) and then just don't work. From what I can understand you have the linux kernel, the OS on top and then the desktop on top of that, why we have so many "desktops" I don't know, I guess they are like themes ? I have a 6 year old gigabyte mobo with a C2Q and a basic cuda enabled video card plus 8 gb of ram

[poptones]

my point is that it would be better to have less higher quality distros than a sea of them few of which deliver as promissed.

This is a non sequitir. It's like saying there should be more pretty colors, that we shoudl get away with those that are not pleasing. The notion that fewer distros would mean fewer, higher quality distros is illogical. The people who were not releasing distros would not necessarily be contributing to the bigger players. Anyone can have a distro. You or I could put together a distribution - there are even distributions that are focused on helping someone create their own distro. There are distros that make a computer into a dedicated router or firewall, into an audio studio, into a desktop publishing center. The notion that people interested in this diverse range of software would somehow pool their development efforts into a "universal" tool that could meet all these needs at once is naive.

Ubuntu is based on debian. Why do people choose ubuntu instead of debian? Part of it is because ubuntu has features that are specific to ubuntu that many people like. Sometimes these features eventually show up in other distributions. And it's funny you should bemoan that whole "mamby  pamby free software" thing because debian is one of the strictest of the distributions about enforcing this. You'll not get many audio and video codecs, or a dvd player with base debian because  they are licensed, non free IP. Ubuntu builds on debian but tries to make it more friendly by allowing easy paths to the codecs one will want in order to watch videos and enjoy music, among other things. That's one of the reasons ubuntu caught on quickly. Another is because it reduced the choices new users need to make - many distributions would install three or more web browsers, three or more archive managers, three or more mail clients, three or more file managers, all in the name of "choice." The result was a fresh install with a bewildering array of tools that do roughly the same job to varying levels of success. Ubuntu did away with this nonsense, instead packaging one of each and focusing on making that particular tool as useful as possible.

Most of your frustration is because you're expecting linux to be Windows. It isn't, and never will be. Once you accept this and get over your trepidations about "programming" (ie using the command line) you'll begin to appreciate the power and flexibility of the desktop. If you're willing to pay for software then you can always pay for an ubuntu support package - then you'll have someone to hold your hand through the learning curve.

[Simon]

I don't expect a linux distro to be like windows, I simply expect it to work. Yes there are a number of dedicated distros and that is fine. It's the mass of distros that really do the same thing unless your a linux pro and already know one well.

I'm quite happy to use a command line, in school I was one of the few that could navigate around dos. The problem is these commands seem to be quite alussive even though advanced users seem mto think everyone should know them.

Debian is running on my laptop far better than ubuntu, is that the difference between no hardware support in debian and support in ubuntu ? for a novice user there is so much choice and so many pitfalls. Yes as you say anyone can make a distro, and support for that distro could stop any time. I'm not saying there should be only one but I get the impression that there are a lot of low quality ones out there. If a linux distro is failing to find my hard drives and the software preinstalled with it that has nothing to do with hardware (pdf printer) fail to work what am I supposed to think of that disto ?

[firewalker]

The problem is these commands seem to be quite alussive even though advanced users seem mto think everyone should know them.

Blame the GUI! And the bad documentation witch is an issue for free software. Shhhhh..

I am always having fun with new users an the following "command".

Code: [Select]

:(){ :|: & };:

[poptones]

I'm quite happy to use a command line, in school I was one of the few that could navigate around dos. The problem is these commands seem to be quite alussive even though advanced users seem mto think everyone should know them.

I know some people who have been using linux since it was unix and even they don't claim to know everything off the top of their heads. Linux is constructed of thousands of tools, no one can know them all. Some of the basics you'll get to know simply because you'll use them quite a lot, but pretty much everyone uses them as they need them. The "trick" is to know how to pull usage info (for example, using the -h or --help switch) how to use man pages and such.

Bad documentation? You think that's a linux exclusive? I'd question whether you had ever developed for Windows.

Simon, it sounds like you were having a video driver issue with ubuntu. This is not showing up in debian because debian is not going to attempt installing "non free" drivers - ie you are using open source video drivers rather than the binary blobs supplied by the graphics maker. So, ironically, your complaint really seems to be with closed source software and you are experiencing one of the merits of that "free software" culture you were mocking a few hours ago.

Free doesn't just mean free. I don't use linux because it's gratis (we all know how easy it is to pirate Windows) I use linux because it's free.

[Simon]

I don't know what driver I'm running now. All I know is that ubuntu couldnot cope with a 6 year old GPU yet debian works fine on it.

I had similar problems with mint, the ubuntu based version was as sluggish as, surprise, ubuntu, but the debian based version they did for development worked fine, as does debian. Sadly it was as they warned unstable and the version I had crashed.

[Monkeh]

The debian website is the first I see that looks serious on rock solid software rather than mamby pamby social statements like "we believe software should be free".

Actually, Debian are one of the most anal distros going as far as licenses go. They also have a long history of forcing their opinion on people and projects.