need advice about linux

[MY NAME IS EARL]

I have the most recent dell inspiron E1705. I'm about to switch from windows vista to linux and I was wondering what the best version for my computer is. (ubuntu, fedora, debain, ect.) so I'm asking for some insight. I can't post hardware specs at this time because I don't know them by heart. I'm on a friend's computer right now. If the hardware specs are THAT important I'll post them when I get home. Thanks for your help in advance.

it really depends more on what your trying to get out of using linux.

[MY NAME IS EARL]

Originally Posted by NMEShadow

it really depends more on what your trying to get out of using linux.

Mainly I want to get aircrack to work because vista is not supported and my computer is not XP compatable. other than that, I'm just sick of windows opperating systems.

[ataraxia]

Oh, well, uh, you're clearly looking to do Linux from Scratch install.

Or, y'know, Fedora.

[MY NAME IS EARL]

Congratulattions ataraxia. you get A golden star for figuring that out all by yourself.(just a little sarcasim. don't get all butthurt) Anyway, I said I'd post my hardware specs when I got home. I'm home now, so here they are.

Processor: Intel Core Duo T5300 1.73 GHz
Motherboard: Intel Calistoga i945GM/PM
Hard Drive: 109GB SATA
Disc Drive: TSSTcorp DVD+-RW TS-L632D ATA Device
Dial UP modem:Conexant HDA D110 MDC V.92 Modem
Wireless:Broadcom 802.11g Network Adapter
Ethernet: Broadcom 440x 10/100 Integrated Controller

[ataraxia]

You shouldn't have any problem with most mainstream distros at those specs. I'll stand by what I said initially, and if you're finding things too slow, drop KDE in favor of LXDE.

The reasoning? I don't want to recommend Ubuntu as it's not that much easier than everything else and generally the veneer it paints over the base of linux causes newbies to become easily frustrated when they have to troubleshoot.

[coroner]

I'll have to recommend Fedora, Fedora 10 should be released or being released in a few days. I just learned tonight that Ubuntu Hardy Heron's installer, Ubiquity doesn't even support LVM yet and something else, was it RAID? I am not sure.. that doesn't matter though I guess with ZFS being available under FUSE.

[MY NAME IS EARL]

[quote=ataraxia;10718266]You shouldn't have any problem with most mainstream distros at those specs.

In that case, I think I'll just try them all and see which one I like best. The one I'm most curious about is unbreakable linux by oracle. Not sure if that one's considered mainstream though. If anyone reading this uses or has used the forementioned distro please give me your opinion of it and also tell me if it's compatable with the hardware I listed. I'm waiting for oracle to send me a coppy and I want to know if I should keep it or not.

[MY NAME IS EARL]

I know; I fucked up the quote tag.
My bad.

Originally Posted by MY NAME IS EARL

Processor: Intel Core Duo T5300 1.73 GHz
Motherboard: Intel Calistoga i945GM/PM

Thats two out of three of the most important specs. What is your video card?

I have a Core2 t5300 1.73GHz, asus/intel i945gm/pm and a radeon x2300...

And two gig of ram...

I found that ubuntu worked, eventually. Fedora had a fair few problems with my graphics card and suse was just too buggy with the graphics drivers...

Having said that, I am going to be installing Fedora 10 soon-ish as I have the disk sitting next to me. (Beta)

[coroner]

Originally Posted by monkeywithaknife

Having said that, I am going to be installing Fedora 10 soon-ish as I have the disk sitting next to me. (Beta)

It is recommended that users do not use the preview for anything but that.. a preview, also note that the preview disc or "beta" as you called it is not an exact representation of what is in the official release of Fedora 10, if you are familiar with the rate at which software package updates come from updates-testing to updates when using Fedora after a release has been made, it is 3 times this fast during other stages of Fedora release processes, during the freeze, only critical bugs are fixed however, so anything you may notice in a preview such as application limitations which existed or are now broken or any new bugs, should be just that, either reported to be fixed.. or retested after the final release has been made.

I just wanted to make that noted because the other poster in the EEdora thread, was using something that is Fedora _based_ and I believe EEdora has a different standard of professionalism than Fedora/RedHat when doing releases, but having things like having to use --skip-broken with Yum in EEdora, gives the general public a closer look into what the actual development process is like.. without having to be a contributor such as I, to a major distribution project.

In fact --skip-broken, is an option available for use by developers and maintainers for any reason, and apparently the case in the EEdora thread is one of them.

I would say though with a 1.7GHz processor, any distribution will work fine, users need to know that Linux is much more configurable than Windows ever was or will be, I ran Fedora from Core 1 to Core 6 on dual 350 MHz server boards, with a maximum of 1GB memory a piece, and it ran like butter runs down a pan on a flame.

[PirateJoe]

Good lucking getting aircrack to work. linux broadcom drivers are hit or miss, I had to use ndiswrapper to get mine to work, which apparently precludes the use of programs like aircrack, kismet, etc.

[coroner]

Originally Posted by PirateJoe

Good lucking getting aircrack to work. linux broadcom drivers are hit or miss, I had to use ndiswrapper to get mine to work, which apparently precludes the use of programs like aircrack, kismet, etc.

You also use archaic Linux kernels under archaic distributions with no realistic development timeline. BCM43xx cards have been supported since the inception of the 2.6 kernel bro.

Quit posting crap on this forum, either get the real data or gtfo.

Originally Posted by ataraxia

The reasoning? I don't want to recommend Ubuntu as it's not that much easier than everything else and generally the veneer it paints over the base of linux causes newbies to become easily frustrated when they have to troubleshoot.

Agreed.

[RDProgrammer]

Didn't have time to read all the responses, but Ubuntu is 100% support on Dell hardware so that is A good start.

RDP

[PirateJoe]

Originally Posted by coroner

You also use archaic Linux kernels under archaic distributions with no realistic development timeline. BCM43xx cards have been supported since the inception of the 2.6 kernel bro.

Quit posting crap on this forum, either get the real data or gtfo.

Care to shut the fuck up? I have a 2.6.25 kernel, my broadcom 4328 is unsupported by the 43xx driver, and all N-series broadcoms are unsupported as well.

https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/b...ay/007517.html
http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/b43

[coroner]

Originally Posted by PirateJoe

Care to shut the fuck up? I have a 2.6.25 kernel, my broadcom 4328 is unsupported by the 43xx driver, and all N-series broadcoms are unsupported as well.

https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/b...ay/007517.html
http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/b43

I will have to assume you are doing something incorrect.
I'm looking at what you posted and I don't even see the card listed that you are talking about. Using NDISwrapper is not the same as using the BCM43xx modules provided in the kernel tree and using fw-cutter.

You do knwo that right?
Also wireless N is pretty new.. Broadcom doesn't release specs as far as I know yet and from the looks of what is on the website you posted they are purposely trying to avoid use of thier wireless cards by quick production of new models.

Originally Posted by RDProgrammer

Didn't have time to read all the responses, but Ubuntu is 100% support on Dell hardware so that is A good start.

RDP

Not all - Ubuntu fails to start Xwindows on my Latitude D630. It just dies in an ugly flickering mess.

Originally Posted by MunkeyQ

Not all - Ubuntu fails to start Xwindows on my Latitude D630. It just dies in an ugly flickering mess.

Dude, Linux is a kernel, GNU a set of tools.
The problem is not related to Linux.

These are the cards supported by Xorg, the *graphics server* in use by most Linux Distributions.
http://www.intellinuxgraphics.org/documentation.html

Dell Latitude D630 uses GMA X3100 aka GM965, which is in the list.
If there is really a problem, it's OpenGL, which is even less related to Linux.
GTFO!

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by zeusy

Dude, Linux is a kernel, GNU a set of tools.
The problem is not related to Linux.

These are the cards supported by Xorg, the *graphics server* in use by most Linux Distributions.
http://www.intellinuxgraphics.org/documentation.html

Dell Latitude D630 uses GMA X3100 aka GM965, which is in the list.
If there is really a problem, it's OpenGL, which is even less related to Linux.
GTFO!

Actually, GNU is an operating system. You're probably talking about GNU Coreutils or GNU Binutils if you're thinking "set of tools".

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Actually, GNU is an operating system. You're probably talking about GNU Coreutils or GNU Binutils if you're thinking "set of tools".

Dude, in my book an OS includes a kernel.
There's no GNU kernel.
Hurd is dead, and was dead from the very beginning.
Linux is not part of GNU.

Many *tools* are part of the GNU project, this includes GNU Nano, Coreutils, Binutils... Which I define as a *set of tools*.

We can therefore refer to GNU/Linux which is a combination of the GNU *set of tools* and the Linux kernel.

Here is a diagram from Wikipedia:

Linux is blue, the GNUs are green, get it?

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by zeusy

Dude, in my book an OS includes a kernel.
There's no GNU kernel.
Hurd is dead, and was dead from the very beginning.
Linux is not part of GNU.

Many *tools* are part of the GNU project, this includes GNU Nano, Coreutils, Binutils... Which I define as a *set of tools*.

We can therefore refer to GNU/Linux which is a combination of the GNU *set of tools* and the Linux kernel.

Here is a diagram from Wikipedia:

Linux is blue, the GNUs are green, get it?

HURD is not dead. It still sees development and Apache runs on it. There are two distributions (Gentoo/HURD and Debian/HURD) of it.

However, many people use the GNU OS with the kernel Linux. Hence GNU/Linux. Portraying the "GNU" part of that as "a set of tools" is belittling the contributions of the GNU Project. The majority of the system is GNU, not just "a set of tools".

[coroner]

Bullshit.
An Operating System requires a kernel. GNU tools by themselves are not an operating system. In fact, I can run a machine without bash.

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by coroner

Bullshit.
An Operating System requires a kernel. GNU tools by themselves are not an operating system. In fact, I can run a machine without bash.

If you can run a machine using the Linux kernel with zero parts of the GNU operating system, go ahead. I would like to see that.

When you say "GNU tools", I presume you are talking about GNU Coreutils and GNU Binutils. They are not an operating system. They are part of the GNU operating system. So is the GNU Bourne-Again Shell. So are the many other official GNU packages. There are also parts of the GNU operating system which are not official GNU packages, such as TeX and the X Window System. I would predict that it is impossible to use the kernel Linux with none of these parts.

[coroner]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

If you can run a machine using the Linux kernel with zero parts of the GNU operating system, go ahead. I would like to see that.

I would love to show you however I think your head is too soft.

I would predict that it is impossible to use the kernel Linux with none of these parts.

As long as my kernel takes control from the BIOS for simple IO to and from devices, I CAN ABSOLUTELY USE THE KERNEL WITHOUT ANY "PARTS" OF GNU.

Originally Posted by Prometheum

HURD is not dead. It still sees development and Apache runs on it. There are two distributions (Gentoo/HURD and Debian/HURD) of it.

However, many people use the GNU OS with the kernel Linux. Hence GNU/Linux. Portraying the "GNU" part of that as "a set of tools" is belittling the contributions of the GNU Project. The majority of the system is GNU, not just "a set of tools".

GNU did not contribute SHIT to Linux.

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by zeusy

GNU did not contribute SHIT to Linux.

Yes, that's quite right. However, whatever you call what it is you're using, or what it is I'm using, or cornorer's using, the GNU Project contributed significantly to that. Which is another reason why it's proper to call it GNU/Linux.

This is also another downside of the ambiguity of calling an operating system "Linux" and a kernel "Linux". What are you talking about here? I assume the kernel, as they did in fact contribute to the GNU/Linux or "Linux" operating system. But do you see how confusing it is?

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by coroner

I would love to show you however I think your head is too soft.

Hello, cop-out!

Originally Posted by coroner

As long as my kernel takes control from the BIOS for simple IO to and from devices, I CAN ABSOLUTELY USE THE KERNEL WITHOUT ANY "PARTS" OF GNU.

I should have said "It is impossible for an operating system to use the kernel Linux with none of these parts". In any event, as you have it, the kernel may be running, but how are you using it?

[ataraxia]

http://shii.org/knows/GNU
AND I QUOTE:

The naming controversy around GNU/Linux is somewhat absurd. GNU can work without Linux, but not very well (GNU/Hurd). Linux can work without GNU (μClinux), but there's no reason to do that on your desktop or server. One can easily run a Unixlike operating system (FreeBSD) with other "core" components like X11 and Apache without GNU or Linux. One can easily run GNU/Linux without X11 or Apache. But both GNU and Linux are essential to running a GNU/Linux operating system on your computer.

For the record, GNU can also work without Linux (and significantly better than Hurd) using L4-linux.

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Yes, that's quite right. However, whatever you call what it is you're using, or what it is I'm using, or cornorer's using, the GNU Project contributed significantly to that. Which is another reason why it's proper to call it GNU/Linux.

This is also another downside of the ambiguity of calling an operating system "Linux" and a kernel "Linux". What are you talking about here? I assume the kernel, as they did in fact contribute to the GNU/Linux or "Linux" operating system. But do you see how confusing it is?

You agree there is no GNU kernel, that GNU did not contribute to to the Linux project, if there is no GNU kernel, GNU is not an Operating System.

Some GNUs* are a glue between the system and the user and/or a glue between the kernel and other applications.
But the System can still *run* without any applications (applications, as the green in the diagram) running.

Therefore, GNU is not an Operating System and is not part of an Operating System.

Deductive reasoning for the win.

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by deus-redux

Who decides who that is? I get my OS from Fedora, not the FSF/GNU. My distribution includes packages written by all kinds of people - why should my OS belong to GNU any more than it does to, say, the KDE team?

Typically, GNU packages are the largest single block of code on any given "Linux" distribution. If you had a system where they were in the minority (without just installing every non-gnu thing you could find to do so -- something I definitely don't hold below you), then you could probably call it KDE/Linux or whatever, but I highly doubt that.

Originally Posted by deus-redux

Many Windows users get a long quite easily without ever using one.

And by the same token, how can you have a general purpose OS in 2009 without a web browser?

I'm not responding to this because I already have.