Calling Linux/Ubuntu users

S0litaire

"Net-tools" is depreciated in Linux and being phased out. The "ip" command replace the ifconfig command.

So it's more of a problem with VMWare than Ubuntu.

It was marked for depreciation nearly 10 years ago with Debian builds being the last to phase it out and start using iproute2 commands instead.

DocQuincy

esuhl wrote: »

Arch Linux is fast and lightweight, has great documentation, and it's easy to set it up however you like. You pretty much start with a blank canvas and install whatever you need.

I'd say an Arch install is well beyond the average user. However, I highly recommend Antergos, which is basically just Arch with a really easy installer. There is also Manjaro, which is not as close to Arch as Antergos but is still Arch-based and uses the same software.

I found there is very little difference between the two though I think Antergos comes with a bit less installed so would lean towards that.

I can't say that I am a huge fan of Ubuntu although I haven't used it for years. I'd recommend either of the above to the newcomer though as I don't think they're any easier or harder than Ubuntu.

The average user might get fed up with the constant updates but I like it.

Other honourable mentions for the newcomer are Elementary, Solus, Zorin and Mint.

One thing you learn after trying a few distros out is most of them aren't that different from one another. The main things that will determine your experience are desktop environment, package manager, policy on free software and where in the “stream” your distro gets its software.

The desktop environment is really the front end. You'll likely go with GNOME 3, Cinnamon or Budgie if you want anything modern. Cinnamon will likely be a good choice if you're used to Windows.

The package managers are what you use to install most of your software. Some distros are more strict that others about including non-free software but they all work in a similar manor. If you download software to install manually you need the right format for your distro.

Some distros aim for cutting-edge whereas others aim for stability but to the average user this isn't likely to matter, just go with whichever one you like.

To the OP, for office type stuff I haven't used Word, etc for over a decade. I personally do everything in Google Docs. Anything browser-based in the same wherever you use it.

Linux is lacking a decent mail client, in my opinion. Again, I would do this in the browser. I really don't like Thunderbird, Evolution or Geary. Mailspring is probably the only one worth a try.

Just install it on a partition and see if you like it.

mgfvvc

Undervalued wrote: »

As far as I know genuine MS Word is not available for Linux

Many years ago, I was able to run MS Office on Linux using a commercial variant of WINE called Crossover Office.

System

Undervalued wrote: »

As far as I know genuine MS Word is not available for Linux which triggers my general warning that Libra Office etc, whilst OK up to a point, can struggle with more complex documents and templates created on the real thing.

Fairly sure iTunes is not available for Linux either.

Both can be run using WINE on Linux.

esuhl

DocQuincy wrote: »

I'd say an Arch install is well beyond the average user.

Yeah maybe, but maintaining a GNU/Linux OS is probably beyond the average user. If you're not interested in computers or Linux, or how to customise your OS, then you're better off using Windows.

The big downside to Windows is malware. But, if you keep the OS and security software updated, system administration is a cinch for your average non-techie home user.

Arch Linux has a bit of a reputation as being something that only hardcore Linux experts should consider... But I have broken every other Linux distro I've tried within weeks! Arch was the first distro that actually made sense. I have a couple of machines that have been running Arch for 10 years with no major issues or reinstallations required.

One Arch's core principles is "KISS" (Keep It Simple, Stupid) -- nothing is unnecessarily overcomplicated.

It's definitely more of a distro for people who want to be in control, instead of having the OS do everything automatically for them: a "roll your own" Linux.

The installation process for Arch looks a little daunting, but it's not that hard. Just follow the step-by-step instructions, making sure you STOP if there's something you don't understand and google it (or click the helpful hypertext link in the wiki).

As a bonus, the installation process guides you through booting from a live Arch CD and chrooting into your hard disk installation to set it up. This is a great way to gain access to a system that doesn't boot. So, if you ever have major problems, the installation guide has already talked you through the process of system recovery.

Installing Arch is much more involved than most other Linux distros, but you end up with exactly the setup you want, and in setting it up yourself, you know how everything works and where to look if something goes wrong.

The great thing about GNU/Linux is that there is so much choice. I'm in love with the simple elegance of Arch Linux, but there are thousands of other distros out there, all designed to "meet the needs" of different people.

I thought this article from the Arch wiki was quite interesting. It tries to explain how Arch differs from other distros:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions

DocQuincy wrote: »

However, I highly recommend Antergos, which is basically just Arch with a really easy installer.

Interesting -- I'll have to check that out.

DocQuincy wrote: »

One thing you learn after trying a few distros out is most of them aren't that different from one another.

Huh -- I'd disagree with that. I'm not a Linux expert, and it's been a while since I tried lots of different distros, but I found some fairly big differences.

Different distros seem to have different "philosophies" and target audiences, and "the right way" to do something in different distros seemed to vary quite a bit.

One of the first things I learnt is that trying to blindly follow guides for "Linux in general" or for other distros never quite worked as it should have. So much information is outdated or assumes situations which may not be the case. It's always best to go straight to your distro's wiki/forum to get specific advice.

Also, I found a lot of differences in the way that package management worked (or didn't). Some distros are bloated with all sorts of software, daemons and fancy eye-candy pre-installed that can be tricky to remove or reconfigure. There are also big differences in the quality of documentation, and forum posts. And I had so many problems with package management -- especially in the more obscure distros.

I know you're talking about desktop Linux distros, but Linux' use in everything from low-power embedded systems to BBC video editing suites shows how powerful and flexible Linux is.

If anyone had tried one Linux distro and been disappointed, I'd definitely recommend doing some research and trying a few others before deciding that Linux isn't for you.

DocQuincy wrote: »

The desktop environment is really the front end. You'll likely go with GNOME 3, Cinnamon or Budgie if you want anything modern.

Don't forget XFCE: a modern desktop environment with a clean look -- a bit like Windows XP. Definitely my favourite. It's just so simple and intuitive. And it's really lightweight too, so it runs great on old hardware.

prowla

I've been running Linux (Mint) as my desktop for a while now.


There are a couple of M$ things I need, so I run them in a virtual machine (ie. Windows in a window) on my Linux box.


I also use VMs for some other things, so I can segregate them from the main desktop installation.

esuhl

Tarambor wrote: »

Both can be run using WINE on Linux.

I've found WINE to be an absolute pain in the wotsits.

I had MS Office running moderately well (so long as you didn't resize the application window), but a WINE update resulted in even more crashes and I just gave up.

I came across PlayOnLinux, a front-end for WINE, and found it much more reliable than WINE by itself.

But it's not perfect so, if I need to run a Windows app, I boot Windows in a virtual machine.

DocQuincy

esuhl wrote: »

Yeah maybe, but maintaining a GNU/Linux OS is probably beyond the average user. If you're not interested in computers or Linux, or how to customise your OS, then you're better off using Windows…

Definitely. I would say unless you are willing to get your hands dirty don't bother with Linux. However, it can be very rewarding.

I agree with you on Arch — and the wiki is extremely comprehensive. That's what's good about Antergos, it has a lot of the pros of Arch but is quick and easy to install.

Yes, you are right that they can be different. What I meant is that those aspects are what I think differentiate a lot of the popular ones. Those differences while small in number can lead to a very different experience.

However, I will say that oftentimes two distributions running the same desktop environment would appear almost identical to the user who just uses it for browsing, etc.

XFCE is good if you have an old machine and it doesn't get in your way. What drives me made though it that screensaver that comes with it. It looks about 20 years. I never managed to get anything else to work with it.

If you want something light on resources that still looks really nice and is hard to mess up I strongly recommend Budgie. It's relatively new but I have never had any problems with it. Solus comes with Budgie by default, Manjaro has a Budgie spin. I am running it on Antergos; it's available with a couple of clicks in the AUR.

prowla

Don't bother with WINE - use either VMware Player or Oracle VirtualBox (both free).

esuhl

DocQuincy wrote: »

Yes, you are right that they can be different. What I meant is that those aspects are what I think differentiate a lot of the popular ones. Those differences while small in number can lead to a very different experience.

However, I will say that oftentimes two distributions running the same desktop environment would appear almost identical to the user who just uses it for browsing, etc.

Ah, yes -- I agree with that.

But (as I'm sure you know) Linux was based on UNIX -- a multi-user system run on mainframes and minicomputers, with technicians administering the system for users. UNIX/Linux was designed to be easy for computer technicians to maintain. Whereas Windows was designed to be easy for users who didn't have technicians on hand.

So, if someone wants to get the most from GNU/Linux, I think it's vital to understand what's happening "behind the scenes" -- to be your own "technician". And I've found a lot of differences in the way that different Linux distros need to be administered and customised. (Most of which I simply can't wrap my head round and end up breaking instantly!)

DocQuincy wrote: »

XFCE is good if you have an old machine and it doesn't get in your way.

XFCE is amazing. I have it running on my old Asus EEE 901 netbook that can't even run Windows XP well, and it performs brilliantly. I also have it on my fast Core i7 PC because it does everything I need. It's so fast and simple!

DocQuincy wrote: »

If you want something light on resources that still looks really nice and is hard to mess up I strongly recommend Budgie. It's relatively new but I have never had any problems with it. Solus comes with Budgie by default, Manjaro has a Budgie spin. I am running it on Antergos; it's available with a couple of clicks in the AUR.

Interesting. There seem to be lots of new desktop environments coming on to the scene now. I'll have a look, but, to be honest... XFCE is so awesome I can't imagine anything will get me to switch... If it ain't broke...