To Linus or not to Linus???

[Trey Hunner]

I am typing this from Ubuntu Breezy. I used Fedora Core 2 for about 3
months. I used Slackware 10 for about 6 months. Before that I'd tried
Redhat 9, Mandrake, SuSE, and various other distributions. I just
recently switched back to Linux from Windows XP because after 13 months
of Windows I could no longer stand being out of LInux.

Ubuntu is probably the most user-friendly and flexible Linux OS I've
ever used. It is more flexible than Fedora Core 2 and it is much more
user-friendly than Slackware. I recommend Ubuntu Breezy!

http://www.ubuntu.com/

 

[Peter Seiler]

John Jay Smith - 22.04.2006 12:41 :

I did not read your post with detail... but I would suggest to use every
technology
available to you to achieve the results you want...

As a creator of many things, I care not what a program or OS is called.. as
long as it helps me
create and produce magnificent things....

so create or use a newsclient that helps you shorten your unnecessay
fullquoting. THX in advance for your kind understanding.

 

[Kalle Piirainen]

I can quit any time I want.

Firstly I must state that this is not a flame. After that was sorted
out; I can get to asking why MEPIS, Ubuntu and such get such a lot good
attention, especially in this goup? As I understand, these are just
derivatives of Debian? Of course as a winnt user I don't have experience
in this field, but recently I've considered switching and done some
research.

It kinda seems to me that Debian would be the most stable, versatile,
cumstomizable general distribution for the hobbyist, am I wrong? Then
again, especially for large network environments and pros, for example
SLES and Novell distros. And of course SuSe and good ol' Red Hat seem to
be most commonly supported driver-wise, at least by hardware manufacturers ?

I've tried Ubuntu Live (3.1 and 4) a couple of times and it didn't
impress me that much. First of all it doesn't seem work with Intel ICH5
RAID. Without trying I can't say how wonderful MEPIS truly is, but I'd
suspect that it isn't the best choice for every situation


Happu linusing to all

- K

 

[Craig]

...why MEPIS,

& Ubuntu..get such a lot good attention, especially in this goup? As
I understand, these are just derivatives of Debian?...

"Just," doesn't quite describe it. Yes they're both derivatives *but*
they've worked to refine and/or add components such that they end up
emphasizing different strengths.

It kinda seems to me that Debian would be the most stable, versatile,
cumstomizable general distribution for the hobbyist...

Debian is extremely versatile. It is very stable. But, you've got to
be ready to get your hands dirty in a fair amount of cli-based setup and
admin. There's not a lot of hand-holding there. If you're comfortable
with the general organization of *nix files and administering *nix...no
problemo.

I've tried Ubuntu Live (3.1 and 4) a couple of times and it didn't
impress me that much...

There was a huge leap forward in the 5.X of Ubuntu. I praise it for
it's "ready to go to work" installations of evolution (outlook-slayer),
thunderbird & OpenOfice. I find the hoopla surrounding Ubuntu (look &
feel, "philosophy," et al) a bit heavy-handed a la Apple Evangelism but

Happu linusing to all

And to you!

-Craig

 

[meow2222]

Humans have a tendency to choose the path that is better marketed,
rather than the better path. Past examples are Edison over Tesla, Ford
over Edsel, cotton over hemp, VHS over Beta...you get the idea.

I think people deserve more credit than that.

Did Edsel match Fords prices?

The old vhs and beta myth... at the time of the competition between the
systems, VHS offered longer play time, and that was the decider for
people who wanted to record movies when not at home. Also the sound
quality on beta was absolutely dire. Beta may have been significantly
better in some other ways, but the play time question was the decider,
and vhs the clear winner.


NT

 

[Mark Carter]

As I understand, these are just
derivatives of Debian?

Yes. Debian forms the basis from which many many distributions are
derived. Slackware is another such distro. Probably Red Hat, too.

It kinda seems to me that Debian would be the most stable, versatile,
cumstomizable general distribution for the hobbyist, am I wrong?

Slackware also has a strong reputation for being stable, versatile and
customisable.

And of course SuSe

I tried the free one, and it is actually quite good. What I don't like
about it is that when you want to install new software, you have to keep
swapping CDs. A bit tedious.

and good ol' Red Hat seem to
be most commonly supported driver-wise, at least by hardware
manufacturers ?

Ubuntu has a reputation as being amongst the best for driver support.

The problem with Debian is that you either use their netinstall disk or
their disk-set. With the former approach, there's virtually nothing on
the disk, so it takes ages to do an installation because it downloads
the extra software from the internet. With the latter approach, there's
a honkingly large number of CDs to juggle (what is it, 12 now?). Neither
approach is particularly appealing, especially if you anticipate
performing multiple installations.

Ubuntu adopts a more sensible approach of providing most of what you
need on one CD.

Debian-derived distros also tend to mix-and-match software from
different branches (i.e. as between stable, testing, and unstable),
attempting to combine the stability of the more stable branches with the
newer features of the more unstable branches. The risk is that you
introduce incompatabilities and breakages. So, you pays your money, and
you takes your choice.

Ubuntu seems to have made many good choices (like choosing to derive
from Debian, selecting Gnome, and putting it all on one CD), suprisingly
good considering that AFAIK he is not a computer geek.

 

[Dewey Edwards]

I think people deserve more credit than that.

Did Edsel match Fords prices?

Er, the Edsel was made by Ford (named after son Edsel).

 

[Al Klein]

The old vhs and beta myth... at the time of the competition between the
systems, VHS offered longer play time, and that was the decider for
people who wanted to record movies when not at home. Also the sound
quality on beta was absolutely dire. Beta may have been significantly
better in some other ways, but the play time question was the decider,
and vhs the clear winner.

Compare apples to oranges:

Frame-sequential color vs. dot-sequential color. RCA won because they
had more money.

Crosby FM vs. the garbage we have today. Crosby lost because who
wanted something invented by an unknown.

We almost had DC power grids (NYC did well into the 1950s), but some
people were less stupid in those days.

 

[Mark Warner]

Firstly I must state that this is not a flame. After that was sorted
out; I can get to asking why MEPIS, Ubuntu and such get such a lot good
attention, especially in this goup? As I understand, these are just
derivatives of Debian? Of course as a winnt user I don't have experience
in this field, but recently I've considered switching and done some
research.

If I had to sum it up, I'd call SimplyMEPIS and Ubuntu and their ilk
"Debian Made Easy".

It kinda seems to me that Debian would be the most stable, versatile,
cumstomizable general distribution for the hobbyist, am I wrong? Then
again, especially for large network environments and pros, for example
SLES and Novell distros. And of course SuSe and good ol' Red Hat seem to
be most commonly supported driver-wise, at least by hardware
manufacturers ?

No argument from me.

I've tried Ubuntu Live (3.1 and 4) a couple of times and it didn't
impress me that much. First of all it doesn't seem work with Intel ICH5
RAID. Without trying I can't say how wonderful MEPIS truly is, but I'd
suspect that it isn't the best choice for every situation

Things have changed drastically in just the last year. Two-year -old
versions aren't in the same league as what is now available.

Best choice for every situation? Of course not. But for someone wanting
to migrate from Windows for general computing, it's hard to beat.

 

[tim]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:24:40 -0400, Mark Warner wrote:

Not anything that has to do with this question, but you look like someone
who may know something

I installed Mepis on the weekend, onto a spare ata 40 gig hd I had laying
around. When asked where to install grub, I chose my sata 250 gig so that I
could also boot XP. Yowza, grub took out mbr/boot record, and I had to do a
repair of XP to get back in to it.

Grub is now on the ata 40 gig, but I can't for the life of me get it to let
me boot up XP, even though it's listed in the menu. I'm getting tired of
switching boot order in the bios to use either XP or Mepis.

Any idea what I need to edit to get it to work?

 

[rich]

Not anything that has to do with this question, but you look like someone
who may know something

I installed Mepis on the weekend, onto a spare ata 40 gig hd I had laying
around. When asked where to install grub, I chose my sata 250 gig so that
I could also boot XP. Yowza, grub took out mbr/boot record, and I had to
do
a repair of XP to get back in to it.

Been there, done it, can I recommend mbrwiz (http://mbrwizard.tripod.com/ )
for backup/restore boot records.

Grub is now on the ata 40 gig, but I can't for the life of me get it to
let me boot up XP, even though it's listed in the menu. I'm getting tired
of
switching boot order in the bios to use either XP or Mepis.
Any idea what I need to edit to get it to work?

This is not so much a fix as a work-a-round for a bios that does not have a
boot menu.

Boot using the Mepis Live CD and log on as root.
Open the "Install Me" dialog
Choose reinstall Grub Boot Loader and select "floppy" as the location.
The drive locations should already reflect where you installed Mepis.
Make the boot floppy.

Now you can set your bios boot order to "floppy - CD - whatever"
When you want to run the Mepis installation, boot with the floppy in the
drive.
Not very elegant but used to be common for linux installations.

best of luck

 

[Mark Warner]

Not anything that has to do with this question, but you look like
someone who may know something

Fooled you.

I installed Mepis on the weekend, onto a spare ata 40 gig hd I had
laying around. When asked where to install grub, I chose my sata 250
gig so that I could also boot XP. Yowza, grub took out mbr/boot
record, and I had to do a repair of XP to get back in to it.

Grub is now on the ata 40 gig, but I can't for the life of me get it
to let me boot up XP, even though it's listed in the menu. I'm
getting tired of switching boot order in the bios to use either XP or
Mepis.

Any idea what I need to edit to get it to work?

Just so I understand correctly... the GRUB bootloader that came up did
*not* list Windows as an option? Yes, MEPIS would be the default, but
you should have had the option to arrow down to Windows and boot to it.
<shrug>

Boot to the Live CD, login as "root"; click Install Me; chose to
reinstall GRUB; point it to the MBR on your primary drive (hda), and
tell it which is your Linux boot/root partition (presumeably hdb1, the
first partition on the secondary drive).

Reboot without the CD. You should have MEPIS at the top of the list;
Windows should be listed, and you should be able to arrow down and boot
to it by hitting Enter.

You can edit the bootloader in the /boot/grub/menu.lst file with Kwrite
(as root):

su kwrite /boot/grub/menu.lst

Each section or "stanza" contains the boot information for each OS that
GRUB detected when installed. MEPIS will be at the top of the list. If
you want Windows to be the default, you can move it to the top of the
list with a simple cut/paste. You can also change the timeout setting (#
of seconds before the default OS is booted) in this file.

 

[tim]

Fooled you.



Just so I understand correctly... the GRUB bootloader that came up did
*not* list Windows as an option? >Yes, MEPIS would be the default, but
you should have had the option to arrow down to Windows and boot to it.

No. Grub did have my XP listed as a boot option. Mepis was default,Mepis
Failsafe(?) second, Windows, and another Windows were third and fourth. No
idea why Windows was listed twice.

Boot to the Live CD, login as "root"; click Install Me; chose to
reinstall GRUB; point it to the MBR on your primary drive (hda), and
tell it which is your Linux boot/root partition (presumeably hdb1, the
first partition on the secondary drive).

I'm loath to do that again. My first installation of GRUB I chose sda1 as
primary, which is the SATA 250 gig and my Windows drive, and had GRUB
load from there. hda1 which is the linux drive, is the
secondary. My choice there put me into an endless loop from post to black
screen to reboot. Which left me to rebuild the boot record/mbr so that I
could get back into Windows. Which allowed me to reinstall Mepis again and
try to make a better choice with GRUB.

GRUB is now on hda1. It sees sda1, and has Windows (twice) listed.
However, I still cannot boot Windows using GRUB. I got a couple of
different GRUB error messages. One was a bios error message, and the other
not a really helpful one.

You can edit the bootloader in the /boot/grub/menu.lst file with Kwrite
(as root):

su kwrite /boot/grub/menu.lst
Each section or "stanza" contains the boot information for each OS that
GRUB detected when installed. MEPIS will be at the top of the list. If
you want Windows to be the default, you can move it to the top of the
list with a simple cut/paste. You can also change the timeout setting (#
of seconds before the default OS is booted) in this file.

I managed to find that, and some information out there on the www about
editing menu.lst. It seems that my editing has now rendered my Windows
drive non functional again. Or else Grub just wants to be in control. I
can't boot to Windows even after setting my bios to boot only from SCSI,
which is the SATA drive. Mepis works really good though I may even get
used to Pan.

 

[Mark Warner]

No. Grub did have my XP listed as a boot option. Mepis was
default,Mepis Failsafe(?) second, Windows, and another Windows were
third and fourth. No idea why Windows was listed twice.



I'm loath to do that again. My first installation of GRUB I chose
sda1 as primary, which is the SATA 250 gig and my Windows drive, and
had GRUB load from there. hda1 which is the linux drive, is the
secondary. My choice there put me into an endless loop from post to
black screen to reboot. Which left me to rebuild the boot record/mbr
so that I could get back into Windows. Which allowed me to reinstall
Mepis again and try to make a better choice with GRUB.

GRUB is now on hda1. It sees sda1, and has Windows (twice) listed.
However, I still cannot boot Windows using GRUB. I got a couple of
different GRUB error messages. One was a bios error message, and the
other not a really helpful one.


I managed to find that, and some information out there on the www
about editing menu.lst. It seems that my editing has now rendered my
Windows drive non functional again. Or else Grub just wants to be in
control. I can't boot to Windows even after setting my bios to boot
only from SCSI, which is the SATA drive. Mepis works really good
though I may even get used to Pan.

Didn't catch that you had an SATA drive in your earlier post... dunno if
that has any bearing on your problem; I have no experience with SATA.

I claim no expertise regarding GRUB. I understand that it's a powerful
tool that will allow you to do a multitude of things. Again, I don't
have any particular insights; the defaults have always worked for me. A
trip to one of the *.os.linux.* newsgroups would probably be worthwhile.
Or a post to the mepislovers.org forums.

This is kind of a half-assed workaround, but you could boot the live CD
and install GRUB to a floppy. Then, when you want to boot MEPIS, just
boot to the floppy first, and go from there.

 

[Mark Warner]

No. Grub did have my XP listed as a boot option. Mepis was default,Mepis
Failsafe(?) second, Windows, and another Windows were third and fourth. No
idea why Windows was listed twice.

Upon further review... what you're describing here sounds nearly normal.
Can't explain the second Windows listing, though; do you by chance have
another install of Windows, or an image perhaps, on a separate
partition? Regardless, if you could boot Tokay into both Windows and
MEPIS from there, you could always edit the menu.lest file and comment
out or delete the stanzas you don't want to appear.

What version of MEPIS were you installing? The last stable version is
3.4-3; the Ubuntu Dapper-based version is now at alpha2. I've had good
luck with v3.4-3 on several machines, including a 4+ year old Dell
laptop; I'm currently running the pare-alpha v6.0 "experimental" on my
main desktop machine and it has been great.

 

[tim]

Upon further review... what you're describing here sounds nearly normal.
Can't explain the second Windows listing, though; do you by chance have
another install of Windows, or an image perhaps, on a separate
partition? Regardless, if you could boot Tokay into both Windows and
MEPIS from there, you could always edit the menu.lest file and comment
out or delete the stanzas you don't want to appear.

I was pretty sure what I was doing was correct. I've tried various
flavors of linux in the past with no problem using a boot loader. Never
tried using a SATA drive as a primary Windows drive though.

What version of MEPIS were you installing? The last stable version is
3.4-3;

Yup, that's the one I got on the weekend.

the Ubuntu Dapper-based version is now at alpha2.

I've just installed Ubuntu 10.1 DVD which I grabbed a couple of weeks ago.
GRUB with Ubuntu did not allow me to boot to Windows either. Must be
something to do with the SATA drive. I'll have to do more reading I guess.

I've had good
luck with v3.4-3 on several machines, including a 4+ year old Dell
laptop; I'm currently running the pare-alpha v6.0 "experimental" on my
main desktop machine and it has been great.

Mepis looked like a nice distro. Not so sure if I like Ubuntu or not yet.
It's different somehow than Mepis so far.

I believe I'll reinstall Mepis, and then have GRUB get installed onto a
floppy as you and Rich suggested, even though it pains me to do it. I'll
have to reinstall a floppy drive into this rig just for that use

Thanks for your time Mark.

tim

 

[Howard Schwartz]

but truly .. what is
Microsoft thinking when they create supposedly high end graphical
editors that do such a poor job ... (this being said by someone who
loves many of the "ease of use" aspects of Windows.

Well the Unix people were definitely on the cutting edge when it came to
making what looked like a 5 minute job take 5 hours. I used to say in
my Unix classes that its (command line) interface makes it easy to do hard
things but hard to do easy things (e.g., the find command). There was a
certain cultish pride Unix folks had, including yours truely, in knowing
some program-specific trick or switch that made the thing work after all.
I myself, because a `troff' expert, the only one in the company who know
how to make a fairly arcane markup language do the things that desktop
publishers are supposed to do -- you know things like automatically
create a table of contents for you.

I must admit the same maddening inconsistencies and sloppiness in MS
software seems somehow more evil.