My OperaLinux, the day after
Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:03:56 PM
Let me summarize:
In these last days I've burned 6 or 7 CDs, installed Kubuntu, Xubuntu, tried to install Fedora from LiveCD but failed, Puppy Linux, OpenSUSE where it failed the LiveCD but succeeded with network install.
Everything Over my secondary 4Giga partition, PIII 500 - 256Mega of RAM.
First thought is the small distros like Puppy are nice but look awful, like lets say Win95 - Win 3.11, while the big distros look very good but do not work on the same hardware where I can run WinXP without problems. Both the Gnome and KDE based desktops require much more CPU and RAM than mine. Opening any application means going 100% with both. XFCE desktop is borderline. Unfortunately using XFCE you don't get any real XFCE application, besides some utilities, so you have two options, either you limit yourself to the few "pure" GTK-only applications like Abiword or Gnumeric, or you end in using Gnome apps like Openoffice in the XFCE environment. It works better than regular/full GNOME but still is is demanding on old hardware. Anyway, the fact that all the big distros are providing XFCE "spins" means they are aware of Gnome and KDE being "heavy", so they are probably seeing XFCE like some sort of compromise between a "not so bad" graphics and a "not so slow" hardware.
Edit: these are the system requirements from Debian, that are probably the more accurate:
Among the distros I've tried, I do not like those based on KDE because I am not comfortable with the new KDE 4x. I've met big problems with Ubuntu and derivatives not handling well my monitor (while Fedora and SUSE handled it well). I liked much the OpenSUSE installer and their Gnome desktop is very "professional". I found a little difficult to install/remove software then because I was shown "packages" and "dependencies" instead the software name only. You know, those things that remind you about good old Linux.
On a side note, when you mess with Linux and Windows together get prepared to deal with problems related to the boot loader and the partitions. Basically you need the Windows install CD with Ubuntu to fix the MBR from the recovery console (fixmbr - fixboot) and in some cases like OpenSUSE you may need a boot floppy or CD with Fdisk to manually remove some "extended" hidden partition which contains the Grub.
On a side note, I don't understand the "source-based" distros like Gentoo. Besides being very difficult to learn, their goal is to be very optimized on your hardware. But to download the source and compile it you need to dedicate half of your hardware, plus you must spend days with compiling and setting. There must be something I do not understand but to me it looks like a game for geeks.
Now I am back to my old Win2K desktop.
Again, I could not find a suitable Linux alternative, also considering my own software selection.
I keep trying because I really dislike the idea of being so much tied by licenses and system requirements.
| A Pentium 4, 1GHz system is the minimum recommended for a desktop. | ||
| Install Type | RAM (recommended) | Hard Drive |
| No desktop | 256 megabytes | 1 gigabyte |
| With Desktop | 512 megabytes | 5 gigabyte |
Shaunak DeShaunak # Monday, January 19, 2009 12:29:23 AM
Sad the live disk did not run.
One thing I do not get is why were you trying to overwrite the MBR. GRUB can easily chain load windows. All you have to do is uncomment the chainloader lines from /boot/grub/menu.lst
Its sad that no distribution does this automaticaly.
Another disturbing trend is that ever since Vista made glass borders popular, both KDE and Gnome have gone all the way to counter with their own visual wizardy, forcing not so fast systems out of the frame.
I wish some one would make a distro which packed the old versions of GNOME.
To be really honest, even I do not really like source based distros
Good exercise in C compiling though....
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Monday, January 19, 2009 9:32:00 AM
I've also observed the installed Linux systems use lots of CPU even when they are "idle", meaning I am not doing anything. I don't know what it is, maybe it is swapping or file indexing. Opening the "task manager" only rise the CPU to 100% usage.
I am not trying to do anything on MBR until I want to erase the Linux installation and boot from good old Win2K I've carefully preserved in its primary partition.
Those big distros are obviously trying to mimic Windows and MacOSX. In my opinion they are trapped in some schizophrenic loop, wanting to be "dumb" for the Windows/Mac users and in the same time wanting to be "geeky" for the Linux fanboys. The result is they fail on both fronts. Yes, it is easy to install the distro but then you get a "generic" system that wastes lots of resurces like, I don't know, Bluetooth active by default on my '98 PIII desktop, Compiz installed by default when my card doesn't have any 3D acceleration, etc.
Another big issue is philsophical about the the desktop environments. I think a desktop environment must stay out of your way, being just the easier way to access the system's services and applications. If it can be pleasant to the eyes that's good, it is a plus. But the Gnome and KDE teams probably think the desktop environment is the reason and the goal in itself. This thing I don't understand.
Shaunak DeShaunak # Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:51:57 PM
If my memory serves me right, geniuses at Knoppix had put it in......
.....but that is mostly because it is primarily a live install needed at least a 512MB's of Ram to run smoothly.
(This is sometime round 2002....so 512 was a big deal.....)
Knoppix's minimum recommendation:
218Mb: recommended minimum for efficient use with Office tools
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:56:57 PM
Some day I must find the will to give it a try, with all those conf files you have to manually edit.
Anyway, the point about CPU and RAM usage is I am using Win2K and WinXP on this machine with decent results. I find interesting that the average Linux distro can't work on the same hardware than XP.
eoinjones # Saturday, January 24, 2009 12:07:36 PM
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:47:46 PM
On my PIII 500 / 256M system XP installs quickly and runs decently with some tuning and of course avoiding heavy apps. Fedora, Opensuse, Ubuntu, ecc DO NOT install or if they install they run on 100% CPU and RAM usage when I open any little program. Like I said, my only chance is to use XFCE or some other "light" DE, in the same time reducing the software I can use to the "pure GTK" only, avoiding Gnome or KDE dependencies. I can't try Gentoo and I haven't tried ArchLinux so far.
I would not say anything about COMPARING if the Linux propaganda wasn't centered on how good is Linux on old hardware. Or if the hardware requirements were not FAKE because you actually need much higher resources to get a complete desktop running. The more honest descriptions I've read said the distro was more or less comparable with XP but actually the truth is current distros require more resources than XP with all the bells and wistles running (to not mention the graphic card 3D acceleration).
Then if we want to make some philosophy, Win2K has got the same stuff as any "contemporary" Linux distro (besides some eyecandy) but it is way less a pain in the ass both in installing and managing.
Comparing anything with Vista is like shooting on the Red Cross. It would be difficult to make it worse than Vista, that requires 10 times the hardware needed for XP.
eoinjones # Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:41:44 AM
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:50:24 AM
The other option is to make a "custom" install of one among the above major distros. These distros are made while looking at MacOSX and Vista, so with the custom install you basically need to strip away what makes those distro worth using instead of Windows. I find this a little schizophrenic from the Linux P.O.V., because basically they are getting the bad parts of those "competitors" (bloatware, useless eyecandy, etc) while retaining the bad parts of Linux (the "learning curve" that means to make things difficult because you are masochist).
IMHO when you want to propose an alternative product it must be BETTER than the competitor, not generally a little worse but overall similar. Lets make another example, you don't get any satisfactory DE on Linux because they are all flawed in a way or another BUT given you have the proper hardware, you can get those fancy 3D effect with rotating cubes and such, which add ZERO to the real usability but people find them cool.
Anyway, all this discussion is pointless because I do believe Linux can't be any better than what it is. It is not a technical problem, simply there are too few good ideas and too many wrong, contradictory and confused ideas.
About Win2K vs Linux, see, I do not care if Linux can be installed over a wristwatch. All I know is I can run the same Openoffice on my Win2K desktop better than over a Gnome desktop, without having to worry about the wrong video resolution and/or the 100% CPU and/or RAM.
FIFINELEB # Sunday, January 25, 2009 1:00:05 PM
Billnecrolin # Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:13:07 PM
B) I remember reading a previous article about Linux that you posted some time ago. At that time Linux didn't work and now you tried so many versions and you still don't have any luck. It may be that some of your hardware is not fully compatible with Linux.
C) About your comment:
"About Win2K vs Linux, see, I do not care if Linux can be installed over a wristwatch. All I know is I can run the same Openoffice on my Win2K desktop better than over a Gnome desktop, without having to worry about the wrong video resolution and/or the 100% CPU and/or RAM."
Really, it's a rather silly comment. I'm sorry, but Win2K is 9 years old. Comparing it to Fedora 10 is like comparing Win2K to Vista and saying that Vista is slower than Windows 2000. Of course it's slower and more resource hungry!! What did you expect?
Linux is only software and connot be expected to perform miracles. You cannot run brand new desktops on ancient hardware. Linux is great on old hardware because it can be modified to run well on pretty much any supported hardware. That being said you have to realistic and use software that your hardware will support. Unfortunately, this may not be the prettiest and fanciest software. It sounds like you're getting frustrated with Linux because you're expections are unreasonable.
D) I'm running Gnome on one of my computers and it's using a little over 80 MB of RAM. If you need 512MB of RAM to run the desktop then you've got way more services enabled than need be.
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:15:54 PM
I expect "marketing" of Vista saying exactly what you said, that Vista does not run over the same hardware as XP. Instead "marketing" of Linux says it works on "old" hardware (which is obviously FALSE unless you use DSL or install the naked kernel) and when it gets a little more honest it says it works on the same hardware as XP, which is true only if you don't use either Gnome or KDE but you resort to those "low end" DE and you don't use any major application.
Yeah right. I don't know maybe it is possible if you proceed with some optimized install like Gentoo or Arch but for sure you can't obtain that result with ANY of the major distros. I've reported the hardware requirements from Debian (1Ghz CPU, 512RAM) that should be the same as Ubuntu and other derivatives. I expect Fedora and Suse to be even heavier. In fact I tried Suse and I could barely open any app from the default Gnome install. Again, I would not say anything it the discussion was about true number and facts instead of fakes.
Billnecrolin # Monday, January 26, 2009 3:37:00 AM
-By the same logic, my main computer doesn't run at all under Windows XP unless I throw about half a dozen driver CDs at it. Therefore, Windows XP sucks. It doesn't work that way. Some hardware is supported right out of the box, other hardware drivers need to be added manually. XP vs. Linux is no different here at all.
"Instead "marketing" of Linux says it works on "old" hardware (which is obviously FALSE unless you use DSL or install the naked kernel)..."
-Again I disagree. The kernel and basic desktop like BlackBox will run perfectly even on older hardware. At the same time we need to be realistic. If you throw too much at the hardware (ex OpenSuse loaded with a ton of unnecessary services and KDE/Gnome) then of course it won't run well on aged hardware. Linux is better than Windows on older hardware because (read carefully) "you can configure it to meet the needs of your hardware". As in, you can change the desktop and other setting to make it work on anything. In Windows you're stuck with whatever Microsoft gives you. That doesn't mean it can do miracles. So, no you shouldn't be using the latest Gnome on hardware that needs 7+ year old software to run. Try RedHat 7.0 vs Win2K to have a fair comparison of speed... aka apples to apples comparison.
"Yeah right. I don't know maybe it is possible if you proceed with some optimized install like Gentoo or Arch but for sure you can't obtain that result with ANY of the major distros."
-That's running on a default install of FreeBSD. No 3D effects. Just the basic desktop and OS.
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Monday, January 26, 2009 8:23:44 AM
AGAIN.
The problem is no Linux version xyz not working on some special hardware, despite the "propaganda" says it runs everywhere.
The problems is when you read the hardware requirements and the supported hardware list and then you discover the REAL hardware requirements are at least DOUBLE than what is written in the docs and the supported hardware is correctly detected but then there is some bug that requires to proceed by trial and error editing 100 conf files. For example both my graphic card and my monitor are correctly detected but, while Fedora works well, Ubuntu wants to set the wrong resolution every boot.
I may also add that IMHO if a Linux distro is not able to be installed and run decently over the same system where I can use WinXP then there are very few reasons to say Linux is better than Windows.
I may agree when people say Linux is better than Vista. Maybe.
I am getting tired of all those lies or half truths. Like:
Are you kidding me or are you serious? Where do you read "FreeBSD" in this whole thread?
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Monday, January 26, 2009 10:54:32 AM
"Linux capable" is the next?
FIFINELEB # Monday, January 26, 2009 11:05:55 AM
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Monday, January 26, 2009 11:16:00 AM
Anyway, like I said, I am annoyed by the "Linux capable" fake propaganda (see the link above).
Billnecrolin # Monday, January 26, 2009 1:18:40 PM
-Well, you said that Gnome needs more than 256 Megs of RAM. I got it running on less. I've had it running on less in ArchLinux and in Ubuntu as well. The only reason I put BSD down and not the other two systems is because I no longer have them installed.
You list your hardware as a 500 MHz PIII with 256 MB of RAM. If you want to try Linux with this configuration then do stay away from Gnome/KDE. You're underpowered for these desktops.
Instead run something like: XFCE or Blackbox. Then disable the services that you do not need. ArchLinux by default only has something like 3 or 4 running services (in comparison I've seen other versions of Linux which by default run over 30 services). If you want auto-mounting disks (Ex you put in a CD and the icon magically appears on your desktop) and other conveniences then you'll need a few more, but there's no reason to be running the HUGE mass of services that most desktop versions of Linux come with. The services are there to make Linux easier for new people (linux beginners) and to have everything just run out of the box, but the vast majority of them can be safely disabled. With the right configuration any version of Linux can run on your computer. Some just need more work than others.
Also, from what I understand from the last time we talked about a year ago your work depends on proprietary software like Photoshop (if I remember right... it's been a while). There's still no Linux version of Photoshop and while it may work in Wine I'm not sure of how well it works under Linux. Now, I understand that you've been trying to make the leap away from Microsoft but right now that's probably the best platform for you to be working on. You need to choose the right tool for the right job and I don't think that Linux meets your needs... at least not for work.
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Monday, January 26, 2009 1:39:14 PM
The core of all this discussion is if Linux is a valid alternative to Windows or not.
So far the answer is if you take Win2K or WinXP in consideration they work better than the available Linux distros like Ubuntu, Fedora and such, by any means.
When I say "better" I mean Windows, without requiring any magic and/or components removing, has got better hardware support, gives you the standard desktop, runs on lower hardware and allows you to run BOTH commercial and open source software, included the same apps as Linux. In fact I can run MS Office or Openoffice on Windows, as long as Pidgin or any other GTK / QT stuff.
While to run Linux over the same machine I must manually make a minimum/custom installation and use a "reduced" desktop, which a much smaller selection of applications (imagine using Linux without any software with Gnome or KDE dependencies). Besides, I am not going to use an 11 years old computer for serious working, so again I don't get the point about Photoshop, etc. Other than system administration and networking, I don't think there is a professional field where Linux is actually better suited then commercial counterparts. I guess any programmer prefers to work on Microsoft tools and there is no need to tell about graphics and video where you can also use Apple.
Billnecrolin # Monday, January 26, 2009 2:23:21 PM
If your computer is 11 years old then it's running on 66 MHz SDRAM. Compare that with current DDR II/III speeds (ex 1.3 GHZ for DDR3) and throughput. Then compare your 500MHz CPU with modern CPUs which run at over 2 GHz. Then compare the other parts of the computer which also run faster now. So, no I'm not being contradictory. Your computer may have enough RAM and still be underpowered and it is.
With Photoshop I was just trying to remember some of the stuff you mentioned that you need working. For some reason I thought I recalled you mentioning the need of Photoshop. Looks like I was wrong... again, it's been a while. Just ignore that comment.
You are correct when you say that an 8 year old operating system (XP) runs better on 11 year old hardware, out of the box, than 1 month old software. There's no surprise there.
And yes, WinXP does meet your needs better than Linux which is fine. I'm running a mix of Windows XP, Vista, BSD, and Linux... both on real machines and virtualized. You need the right tool for the right job and sometimes that tool is MS... while at other times it's not.
I still find it strange that you're basing your judgement of an operating system based on installations on ancient hardware, but that's just me. So long as you realize that just about any modern OS would bomb this test (Solaris, Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008... etc)
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Monday, January 26, 2009 2:41:39 PM
BEFORE installing Linux I go on the distro website and I carefully read the documentation there. When I find my hardware in the supported hardware list and when the guide says my hardware specs are in the valid "range", then I expect things to work, if not in the optimal way, at least so and so.
I don't expect for sure to get a failed install or wrong hardware detection and even less to waste my time in working around the glitches to get an environment that is almost unusable because of too few resources.
It is like going on Microsoft site and read that Vista runs over 128Mega RAM, then when you try you are told "but see, your system is 11 years old so it can't work with Vista".
I've said it many times already, it is not the Linux in itself, it is being joked, told lies, half truths, silly marketing, call it as you like.
Edit: speaking of specs, the netnooks of the lower prices use Linux as OS. Now, if it wasn't for the license, wouldn't XP being a better alternative than Linux for those computers?
Billnecrolin # Monday, January 26, 2009 3:10:30 PM
Recommended minimum requirements
* 700 MHz x86 processor
* 384 MB of system memory (RAM)
* 8 GB of disk space
And we all know that the minimum is usually a very minimum just to barely work. Microsoft is the same on this as is most software out there. Everyone tells half truths on this one.
The OpenOffice website indicates:
Minimum system requirement is: A Pentium 4, 1GHz system is the minimum recommended for a desktop systems... 512 MB RAM recommended
So neither does your computer meet the minimal hardware requirements for Ubuntu/Kubuntu/OpenSuse nor does it even meet the system requirements of OpenOffice 3, which happens to be the version that you would have been using with these distros.
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Monday, January 26, 2009 3:26:05 PM
Maybe I am stupid but given this specs, I would expect a system with 256MB to be working with some problems given the fact it is between Ubuntu's minimum 64M and the raccomanded 384M, same for the CPU being between 300 and 700MHz.
AND for sure I expect it to work with Xubuntu.
Yes, I KNOW all those information are bullshit and you should assume the Debian specs as BARE MINIMUM requirements.
Billnecrolin # Monday, January 26, 2009 3:42:29 PM
Besides, did you even read what you wrote??? It "SHOULD BE POSSIBLE" is a huge maybe. Then they go on to state that the system would NOT RUN WELL. Then, right underneath that paragraph they go on to give you the actual minimum requirements which I posted above. Your test computer does not meet these. So, they sound pretty honest in my opinion.
I never stated that your computer would not run Xubuntu... but you'd need to use an older version of OpenOffice with it.
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Monday, January 26, 2009 4:04:47 PM
I don't get the idea of "possible" (with "huge maybe") and "actual" requirements.
May I also say in the specs you wrote Ubuntu itself could not run Openoffice because of the difference between the system: 700MHz - 384MB and the Openoffice: 1GHz - 512 MB RAM ?
Anyway, you don't see the problem, I do not see it either. Everybody is happy once you forget the "propaganda" and use common sense. Yes, it is common sense to not expect a software made in 2008 to work on a computer made in 1998.
lucideer # Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:50:02 AM
But I still like to keep a few OSes on the go, and am currently very impressed with one Linux project. I see you said "small distros like Puppy are nice but look awful", but I wonder have you had a look at Puplets. The default of any desktop environment may be awful but it can invariably be customised to look any way you like and if that's too much hassle the chances are someone's already done it for you.
Lorenzo CelsiLorenzoCelsi # Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:33:15 AM
The point of this whole thread is after my own little testing I found that current Linux distros are inferior to Windows versions that stay in the same range of resources usage, so basically one of the main reasons to switch to Linux is false. If I compare the software selection I can use on both systems, Linux is again the looser because in the very best condition the software is more or less the same (but Windows can run most Open Source software PLUS the commercial one). In fact I can still run latest versions of most Windows software on my Win2K system, while in Linux you don't get any compatibility among different versions of the same distro, to not mentions among different distros. I mean, I could be wrong but I guess with the Debian stable you still have Firefox 1.5 while on my Win2K I am running 3.1... Yes there are the "backports" but it is not the same, you know.
NUKKNukk # Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:57:40 AM
Dreamlinux
System Requirements(minimal): XFCE: Pentium III
128 MB RAM HDD or SDD/FlashDrive 1GB free.