• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Linux for an everyday desktop pc?

Kadarin

Lifer
Sorry for the noob question here, but I haven't installed Linux since about 2004 (gentoo, on an AMD 1800+ box). I'm debating whether or not to update this PC, and if I do so, whether to do one of the following 3 options:

1. Get an iMac, pay the premium in price, and not worry about installation, configuration, etc. Would run XP in a VM.

2. Replace this machine with a new homebuilt PC with decent specs, using Ubuntu or some other Linux distro (possibly with XP running in a VM).

3. Same as option #2, but with XP only.

What applications do I use? I do not do any gaming currently. I do the following:

intarweb
watch video
listen to music
use citrix client
use sslvpn client
use wireshark/ethereal
telnet/ssh/ftp

So... How usable is Linux? This means, if I install it, how easy is maintenance over time (security updates, and application updates)? Will it "just work"? Can I plug in external HDDs (NTFS) via firewire 400/800, without having to dig through config files?

Thanks for any input...
 
With any good modern distro setup should be painless, so should daily use (installation, updates, adding hardware, etc) for the most part. Ubuntu, SUSE, PCLinuxOS and a couple of others are good candidates. I use Ubuntu daily, and have for over a year, and love it. For a desktop Id personally probably go with debian first.

If you dont game a lot or need Office 2007 or photoshop, you can probably skip windows altogether. If you get a mac you can run bootcamp and just dual-boot windows, and of course you can dual-boot with linux if you need to (or run a VM)

Adding external devices is a plug and play event now (hell, ubuntu installed my printer before i could *find* drivers from the samsung website).

Do yourself a favor. Get a Ubuntu live cd and try it out. If your system is ancient try Xubuntu instead. I do everything daily with Ubuntu, and only have an XP virtual machine because I got tired of futzing around trying to get Office 2007 to work properly in wine.

slightly older games may actually even play well in wine, and i think codeweavers offers software to run office
 
Everything you want to do should work in linux. Linux is a professional OS, it is easy to use and you can get real work done in it.
 
linux has come a long way over the years. you almost never have to touch the config files with a good modern distro.

I would recommend ubuntu. It is fairly popular, and has lots of support.

I looked up citrix (never heard of it before). it has a native linux client, but you might have to compile it yourself.

Wine is also able to run it, but it isn't all that popular so I can't predict your exact results.
 
What applications do I use? I do not do any gaming currently. I do the following:

Just about the only thing that won't work out of the box is Citrix but they do have a Linux client. Personally I try to avoid it as much as possible and just use rdesktop to connect via RDP.

Can I plug in external HDDs (NTFS) via firewire 400/800, without having to dig through config files?

Depends, some distros don't include NTFS support so you might have to install it but that's simple.
 
If you're considering a Mac, yet don't want it for any *specific* macintosh specific software / hardware compatibility, I'd say LINUX is going to work great for you.

a) LINUX doesn't play many video games well.

b) LINUX doesn't work well with certain low end / obscure models of scanner, printer, wireless networking devices, and various gaming oriented specialty peripherals like certain joysticks or so on. The reason being simply because the manufacturers don't write LINUX drivers, and there may not be open source ones that work well for certain devices. A slight bit of research will inform you good printer / scanner / networking / PDA / etc. choices for LINUX use. Newer Creative Labs sound cards and similar ones are a bit iffy in support too.

c) LINUX doesn't run most software designed for MS Windows well. Some things run in WINE, lots more run under a virtual machine. Just don't expect a lot of stuff that is heavily involved with gaming, advanced GPU functions, DRM / copy protected stuff, heavy use of non-standard PCI peripheral cards, etc. to work in a VM. Same deal as on a Macintosh running Parallels etc.

Internet -- LINUX does pretty well. Flash player / real player can be a bit unstable due to faults in the proprietary software, not so much a problem of LINUX. Firefox can be pretty unstable for some people and work well for others. I'd say that if FF doesn't work well for you, there's always Opera, Netscape, etc.
Generally there's equivalently good free download manager, P2P, FTP, S/W for LINUX as Windows.
Instant Messaging software doesn't work quire as well in terms of the advanced features like webcam and VOICE as under Windows, again, due to a lack of good LINUX support by MSN, AIM, ICQ, Yahoo companies. That would be an excellent thing to run under XP in a VM for when you need it. Pidgin (LINUX multi-protocol IM client) actually works quite well when all you need is basic text chat on the various systems.

Citrix -- I have no idea. I assume the clients for LINUX work ... research it.

SSLVPN -- I'm not specifically familiar with that one, but in general LINUX has better open standards / open source VPN / SSL / networking / encryption support than Windows. If it has a LINUX client I'd assume it would work great. IPSEC and OpenVPN and other VPNs work well under LINUX.

Wireshark / ethereal -- these kinds of things tend to work better under LINUX than Windows.
Telnet/SSH/FTP ditto of course.

Updates are automatic in most any modern distribution... just click the little "updates are ready" icon and tell it to go ahead and install them all or ones you want. Rebooting after a kernel or x-windows or similar major update is a good idea. Generally once or twice a month there will be significant enough updates that you might want to reboot. Generally you don't HAVE to install the updates as soon as they appear but can wait until a convenient time and your system will still usually be secure and functional until you'd like to install them.

Put the system on a UPS to protect it from power outages, keep it from running out of disk space, blow the dust off now and then, and in general it'll run with almost zero maintenance for months at a time, literally, without even turning it off / rebooting if desired.

There is generally VERY little maintenance needed unless you've had a severe crash due to power loss or unusual system errors. Even then USUALLY it just boots up and keeps working. If you want to do a full on upgrade of the OS that can get a little tricky; usually new OS distributions appear every 6 months, but there's no real reason to upgrade to the new version if you're happy with the old one. Chances are you'll keep getting all the major security / major bug fix updates for the old version for at least 2+ years even if you never upgrade to the newer ones.

Plug in USB drives usually "just work" occasionally something gets a little confused and it may not auto-mount something, but 60 seconds worth of learning will show you how to manually mount one if needed. NTFS-3G filesystem support is excellent these days. Also ISO9660 and FAT file system support is very good. Interchanging files on USB drives / flash disks / firewire drives / CD / DVD etc. is very easy typically.

Look into SUSE, Fedora 9, either one should be pretty stable and easy to use for you.

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Sorry for the noob question here, but I haven't installed Linux since about 2004 (gentoo, on an AMD 1800+ box). I'm debating whether or not to update this PC, and if I do so, whether to do one of the following 3 options:

1. Get an iMac, pay the premium in price, and not worry about installation, configuration, etc. Would run XP in a VM.

2. Replace this machine with a new homebuilt PC with decent specs, using Ubuntu or some other Linux distro (possibly with XP running in a VM).

3. Same as option #2, but with XP only.

What applications do I use? I do not do any gaming currently. I do the following:

intarweb
watch video
listen to music
use citrix client
use sslvpn client
use wireshark/ethereal
telnet/ssh/ftp

So... How usable is Linux? This means, if I install it, how easy is maintenance over time (security updates, and application updates)? Will it "just work"? Can I plug in external HDDs (NTFS) via firewire 400/800, without having to dig through config files?

Thanks for any input...

 
PS I run similar sorts of applications as you mentioned, and I use my LINUX box for hours a day. Only rarely do I even boot my Vista 64 one because it is just frustrating not having the tools I like for networking, shell, file management, et. al. available under Windows. LINUX is a lot superior in terms of overall quality of the user interface, stability, and functionality in many cases.



 
The first thing I install on windows...cygwin 🙂

I would say however, that a mac and linux have a lot of interchangeable skills. Learning one inside and out helps a lot with learning the other. Especially on the shell level. I am a LONG time linux user who has moved to mac. My reasoning, better 3rd party hardware support for mac, and better game support for mac. I get 99.9% of all the tools I love on linux, and I get blizzard games, Unreal games, ID games, EA games, etc. On top of that my printer/scanner/fax works without trouble, my wireless works flawlessly, my video again flawless, and I get access to tools that are awesome for doing my job (textmate, photoshop, xcode, etc) without running wine.

Both linux and mac are great alternatives. If you go linux, research your hardware extensively, make sure what you buy works well. If you do that up front you will have a perfect system. If you go mac, I high recommend a macbook or macbook pro over an imac. Seriously, without gaming you are not going to see much difference in performance, you are never going to seriously upgrade a mac, and that portability does come in handy.
 
Originally posted by: sourceninja
If you go mac, I high recommend a macbook or macbook pro over an imac.

As an FYI, I already have a MacBook Pro (which I actually use as my "primary" PC). I have a third PC also that I rarely use, and it's running Win2K. So actually, I think the primary use of this computer will be for media management and acquisition, along with general use when the MBP is either not available or is otherwise being used for something.

I'm really tempted to give Ubuntu a look.
 
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: sourceninja
If you go mac, I high recommend a macbook or macbook pro over an imac.

As an FYI, I already have a MacBook Pro (which I actually use as my "primary" PC). I have a third PC also that I rarely use, and it's running Win2K. So actually, I think the primary use of this computer will be for media management and acquisition, along with general use when the MBP is either not available or is otherwise being used for something.

I'm really tempted to give Ubuntu a look.

Might try Linux Mint. I havent used it, but its based on Ubuntu but already has multimedia codecs and some other things installed that may save you a few minutes of installs later on 🙂
 
Originally posted by: xSauronx
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: sourceninja
If you go mac, I high recommend a macbook or macbook pro over an imac.

As an FYI, I already have a MacBook Pro (which I actually use as my "primary" PC). I have a third PC also that I rarely use, and it's running Win2K. So actually, I think the primary use of this computer will be for media management and acquisition, along with general use when the MBP is either not available or is otherwise being used for something.

I'm really tempted to give Ubuntu a look.

Might try Linux Mint. I havent used it, but its based on Ubuntu but already has multimedia codecs and some other things installed that may save you a few minutes of installs later on 🙂

Mint is pretty neat. Running it on my old lappy and if it wasn't such a slow computer Mint would be a lot more fun. Its only 192MB ram and 700Mhz celeron.
 
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: xSauronx
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: sourceninja
If you go mac, I high recommend a macbook or macbook pro over an imac.

As an FYI, I already have a MacBook Pro (which I actually use as my "primary" PC). I have a third PC also that I rarely use, and it's running Win2K. So actually, I think the primary use of this computer will be for media management and acquisition, along with general use when the MBP is either not available or is otherwise being used for something.

I'm really tempted to give Ubuntu a look.

Might try Linux Mint. I havent used it, but its based on Ubuntu but already has multimedia codecs and some other things installed that may save you a few minutes of installs later on 🙂

Mint is pretty neat. Running it on my old lappy and if it wasn't such a slow computer Mint would be a lot more fun. Its only 192MB ram and 700Mhz celeron.

*thats* a good system to try xubuntu on. or maybe fluxbuntu, though i havent tried the latter myself.
 
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: xSauronx
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: sourceninja
If you go mac, I high recommend a macbook or macbook pro over an imac.

As an FYI, I already have a MacBook Pro (which I actually use as my "primary" PC). I have a third PC also that I rarely use, and it's running Win2K. So actually, I think the primary use of this computer will be for media management and acquisition, along with general use when the MBP is either not available or is otherwise being used for something.

I'm really tempted to give Ubuntu a look.

Might try Linux Mint. I havent used it, but its based on Ubuntu but already has multimedia codecs and some other things installed that may save you a few minutes of installs later on 🙂

Mint is pretty neat. Running it on my old lappy and if it wasn't such a slow computer Mint would be a lot more fun. Its only 192MB ram and 700Mhz celeron.

You ran Mint on that? I figured Mint would be a beefier install than stock Ubuntu.
I have Xubuntu running on a laptop with 256MB of ram and a 800mhz Duron, and it's no treat. I really think that level of hardware needs something a bit leaner, like a Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux.
 
I think I'll be giving this a go. I just can't justify spending the extra cash on an iMac when I already have a 24" monitor. All I really need is a power supply, mobo, memory, cpu, and an HDD. I'll reuse my ATI HD2600Pro video card (hopefully this will work fine under Ubuntu; otherwise I'll have to either consider changing this or switching to XP).
 
You ran Mint on that? I figured Mint would be a beefier install than stock Ubuntu.

Last I checked it was just a new theme and a bunch of media codecs installed by default on top of Ubuntu so the only difference should be in disk space.

I have Xubuntu running on a laptop with 256MB of ram and a 800mhz Duron, and it's no treat. I really think that level of hardware needs something a bit leaner, like a Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux.

Or you could just switch away from Gnome in Ubuntu. There's nothing stopping you from using the same software that DSL uses, AFAIK it's all packaged in Ubuntu too.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
You ran Mint on that? I figured Mint would be a beefier install than stock Ubuntu.

Last I checked it was just a new theme and a bunch of media codecs installed by default on top of Ubuntu so the only difference should be in disk space.

I have Xubuntu running on a laptop with 256MB of ram and a 800mhz Duron, and it's no treat. I really think that level of hardware needs something a bit leaner, like a Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux.

Or you could just switch away from Gnome in Ubuntu. There's nothing stopping you from using the same software that DSL uses, AFAIK it's all packaged in Ubuntu too.

Xubuntu uses XFCE.
And even Xubuntu has a lots more services and such loading up than puppyLinux. It's basically Ubuntu minus a few services and XFCE.
 
Xubuntu uses XFCE.
And even Xubuntu has a lots more services and such loading up than puppyLinux. It's basically Ubuntu minus a few services and XFCE.

I know what Xubuntu uses, my point is that the exact same software in Puppy or DSL is also available in Ubuntu so the only reason to go with another distro is if you don't feel like adding/removing software after the initial installation. Personally I'd go for Debian over Ubuntu, but that's such a minor difference that it's barely worth mentioning.
 
I prefer Debian's spartan installer, stricter license requirements and Debian is Ubuntu's upstream so why not just go to the source? And the fact that Ubuntu still has no distribution like sid is a show stopper for me.
 
And by contrast (to show both sides of the coin), I like ubuntu because it basically sets everything up the way I want it from the start. so why bother trying to change debian to meet a mold ubuntu provides me.
 
If you do a Debian desktop install that uses Gnome what's not setup similar? I know sudo isn't forced on you but I've never actually done a side-by-side comparison?
 
Back
Top