Considering switching to Linux entirely...

[Pyroflea]

After a long period of time of running Windoze only, I asked myself why I was still using it. My excuse used to be that I gamed on PC quite a bit. However, recently I haven't touched my PC for gaming, and have exclusively been using PS3. Also, after looking at the AppDB on WineHQ, I've noticed that most of the games I would play on PC run on Linux just fine. I'm in dire need of a Windoze re-install, so I figured I might make the leap, and switch entirely over to Linux.

However, I'm having some issues picking a distribution (I can never seem to decide). I just want something sleep and simple, with some fun desktop effects, and useful programs. Ideally I'd LOVE to do a Gentoo install, but I do not feel my skills are adequate for such an endeavor.

I was looking at Mint and Mandriva, but I really just don't know what to go for anymore. I know this question gets asked a lot (and I'm sorry ), but does anybody have any suggestions for a distro? I mostly just browse forums, chat on IM, listen to music, but I also spend a fair amount of time in CAD and Photoshop.

Also, does 64-bit work well with Linux, or should I stick with 32-bit?

Thanks guys,


- Jesse

 

[Pyroflea]

Any modern Linux distro will have no problem reading an NTFS. They can also write to such a file system, although the very paranoid might warn you against doing so.

As long as it can read it I'm more than happy; that saves me a bit of work. Thanks

 

[Ijack]

Just in case the distro you use doesn't autometically mount any NTFS partitions (some do, some don't), here's a quick rundown on how it's done.

 

[Pyroflea]

Just in case the distro you use doesn't autometically mount any NTFS partitions (some do, some don't), here's a quick rundown on how it's done.

Awesome, thank you very much.

 

[Canuck1]

You can go to distrowatch website as well and just download and burn the distro iso files so you can boot up some of these live cds and dvds. You'll get an idea of what to expect. You could also try 'VirtualBox' (google it) and install virtual versions of these distros. It's another option.

 

[jokersmiles85]

My vote is for ubuntu or if you wanted to go all kde style kubuntu. But I also like mint for the kde style to.

 

[Pyroflea]

There's been a bit of a delay. Between school and family, I've been too busy to get much of anything done. Hopefully get something installed pretty quick here.

 

[Pyroflea]

A little update for anyone who cares. I've decided to just download VirtualBox for now, and I'm downloading a bunch of images.

So far I've got Mint, Ubuntu, and Mandriva. I also got Kubuntu just as I've never tried out KDE before. I'm gonna fool around with those for a week or two and see what I like the best I figure.

 

[linux_0]

Don't forget fedora 13 it's coming out in 11 days

Ubuntu 10.04 looks good but remember VirtualBox's going to run slow compared to a real native install. Also some versions or VirtualBox don't get along with ubuntu 10.04 so your graphics'll break if you install the VirtualBox drivers.

Good luck

 

[Pyroflea]

Don't forget fedora 13 it's coming out in 11 days

Ooh, will definitely check that out as well!

Ubuntu 10.04 looks good but remember VirtualBox's going to run slow compared to a real native install. Also some versions or VirtualBox don't get along with ubuntu 10.04 so your graphics'll break if you install the VirtualBox drivers.

Good luck

So far I've only tried Mandriva out. I didn't have much time to putz around, but it's working. I attempted to install Ubuntu/Kubuntu, and it gave me some message saying the graphics are set to 16-bit, and to change them to 32-bit. I can't seem to find this option anywhere though? Any pointers?

Thanks,


- Jesse

 

[randomizer]

I've found VirtualBox to be faster at some things than a native install. Specifically in boot time. I ran bootchart and recorded under 6 seconds once. That's seemingly impossible for a HDD, and indeed a native install is more like 4-5x that. Someone who had their VDI on an SSD recorded 0.5s

 

[Pyroflea]

I've found VirtualBox to be faster at some things than a native install. Specifically in boot time. I ran bootchart and recorded under 6 seconds once. That's seemingly impossible for a HDD, and indeed a native install is more like 4-5x that. Someone who had their VDI on an SSD recorded 0.5s

That's just ridiculous. I can't even fathom that quick of a boot :lol:

I have no complaints with speed so far. Seems to be running fine for me. I have 1gb of RAM dedicated to my VirtualOS, so it's not too bad

 

[Pyroflea]

I always give it 2GB, but I have 6GB total Running more than 1 VM at a time when I had 4GB RAM was a bit painful.

I've only got 3gb right now, so I just gave it as much as I could while leaving a safe margin for my main OS. Vista is a resource whore unfortunately.

 

[randomizer]

I always give it 2GB, but I have 6GB total Running more than 1 VM at a time when I had 4GB RAM was a bit painful.

 

[Pyroflea]

So far I've tried out Mandriva, Ubuntu and Kubuntu. I'm really not a fan of KDE, so Ubuntu is the "Distro of Choice" at this point in time. I still have to test out Mint, and then Fedora in a week and a half when it comes out though.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Pyroflea]

Just how difficult is installing Gentoo? I figure since I've got some time to burn until Fedora 13 comes out, it might be worth a shot in VirtualBox. Would a noob be able to figure it out, or should I just not even consider it?

Thanks,


- Jesse

 

[linux_0]

You'll want to talk to Zorak about that

He's been running gentoo for a long time.

Semper Fi

 

[randomizer]

I tried Gentoo once on a Powerbook G4 that lacked a working hard disk. At that time I didn't know Gentoo wasn't even a complete base distro, so I'm not exactly sure what it was that I was doing with it. I think I might have formatted the HDD or something. Can't have been much, I certainly didn't know I had to compile anything.

 

[Pyroflea]

Ehh, maybe I should hold off until I'm a bit more familiar with Linux first. I'll talk to Zorak about it anyways though

 

[Ijack]

Just how difficult is installing Gentoo? I figure since I've got some time to burn until Fedora 13 comes out, it might be worth a shot in VirtualBox. Would a noob be able to figure it out, or should I just not even consider it?

Thanks,


- Jesse

Gentoo is not at all difficult to install nowadays. There is a very clear hand-holding walkthrough of installation in the documentation on their web site. And it works well on more exotic architectures.

If you're trying things out in VMs it's well worth a try. You've got nothing to lose and you'll learn a lot more than by doing an automatic installation of Ubuntu. It does help to have reasonably powerful hardware (i.e. anything recent), but I run it on an old PPC Mac Mini, as well as on Intel processors, without any problems.

 

[kyeana]

If you want to install a distro that will give you all sorts of advanced linux knowledge, i would highly recommend arch. You will still learn a lot, but you will also have a great package manager (not have to compile everything from source) and a wonderful community with documentation on pretty much everything.

I am personally using arch on my laptop and fedora on my desktop, and love both of them.

 

[Pyroflea]

Gentoo is not at all difficult to install nowadays. There is a very clear hand-holding walkthrough of installation in the documentation on their web site. And it works well on more exotic architectures.

If you're trying things out in VMs it's well worth a try. You've got nothing to lose and you'll learn a lot more than by doing an automatic installation of Ubuntu. It does help to have reasonably powerful hardware (i.e. anything recent), but I run it on an old PPC Mac Mini, as well as on Intel processors, without any problems.

Well that's encouraging. I'll be sure to go hunt down all the information necessary and give it a try!

If you want to install a distro that will give you all sorts of advanced linux knowledge, i would highly recommend arch. You will still learn a lot, but you will also have a great package manager (not have to compile everything from source) and a wonderful community with documentation on pretty much everything.

I am personally using arch on my laptop and fedora on my desktop, and love both of them.

I'll look into Arch as well. Just all depends on how school goes for the next couple weeks. Been kinda hectic.

 

[Pyroflea]

I finally made the transition tonight School finished up today, and I found myself with, *gasp*, some free time! I'm currently posting in Ubuntu 10.04 64-Bit

 

[Pyroflea]

Is there any way to shrink an NTFS volume from within Ubuntu? I set things up in a... less than ideal manner. Essentially I have a huge NTFS partition with all my backed up files I wanted to transfer to Ubuntu, and then the Ubuntu installation beside that. I'm running out of space on Ubuntu already, so I need to shrink the NTFS, and expand the Ext3. Gparted doesn't want me shrinking the NTFS value for some reason. Any input?

 

[Ijack]

A lot of people seem to have problems resizing NTFS partitions under gparted. It could well be down to hidden files that have been placed at fixed locations. In your position I would backup the files to an external disk and delete the partition, then use gparted to get the partitions how you want them and restore the files.

You don't have an external drive, you say? You weren't really going to resize a partition without having a backup of it, were you?

Seriously, if the files are important you need a separate backup of them. Disks can fail (and often do). If you don't have an external drive then get one - they're a cheap form of insurance nowadays.

 

[Pyroflea]

They're not that important really, I just have a lot of music and movies, and would rather not... "re-acquire" them. I have another drive that I'll just throw them on and then do what you said. I just wasn't sure if I was missing something obvious or not; I figured I'd just ask before formatting it.

Thanks.