Linux is a pile of poo.

[Torben]

Hmmm, you might have a very good point there actually.

Ok... can you recommend a lightweight (but very functional) distro then? Basically I want functionality without all the bloat and eye candy. If you can recommend a good distro that approximates those goals, I'll give it a try!

Brian

First you have to define "lightweight" and "functional", but try XUbuntu. It's Ubuntu with the lightweight XFCE desktop instead of the rather heavyweight and glossy Gnome or KDE.

For that matter, Ubuntu itself is essentially just a wrapper around Debian, intended to hide many of the complexities (but not all, as Pommie found out) from the user.

For really low-end machines I'd just skip the window system altogether but I rather think that's not what you mean by "functional".


Torben

 

[Torben]

hehe. Today's XKCD seems oddly topical: xkcd - A Webcomic - Supported Features


Torben

 

[Mikebits]

Torben, you must be really good at what you do, your last three post sounded like Greek to me. I better stick with windows

 

[Wonka]

A few things guys, I have tried many times to get Linux on PCs. This thing about Linux being able to run on a 486 8Mb and compact, well that seemed possible once you had spent an age removing features you didn't need which ends up being a DOS equivalent, no GUI only command line. So that was a backward step, maybe OK for a dedicated system.

Yes there did seem to be a number of GUI available, I realise they are working examples which can be modified. But I they seemed to run 50 times slower than any Win PC, as in click a button wait 3 sec and the menu would pop up, click again..wait 3 sec and the text would pop up. I know this will be finding and setting up the various drivers but I had already been through Linux hell getting a working install.

The bootable CDrom dist was useful, it showed quite quicky Linux was not going to be worth the effort, seemed so slow to the point of being useless.
Yes I am no expert at Linux, naturally when you are an expert at something, it's easy. My question was, is Linux worth the time and effort in getting to grips with.

 

[Pommie]

I managed to get the network working. I swapped back to my old router incase it was something weird with the DLink one and that fixed it. However, ubuntu worked fine with the DLink until it upgraded to 9.04. I'll need to figure out why there is a problem as the router I am on at present (2Wire) crashes with bit torrent and some games.

As for a reinstall, the CD I have resets the PC when you select install. Guess I'll download a different iso and see if that works. I'm going the reinstall route because I'm getting all sorts of errors on bootup. Low graphics, Greeter crashing etc.

Mike.

 

[unclejed613]

i've been around these boxes of data pretty much since they came out. my first "pc" was an osborne 1 with a whopping 64 K (!) of memory running an OS called CP/M (a predecessor of DOS). it had a pair of 360k 5-14" single sided floppy drives, a GPIB port for a 5Meg hard drive (way too expensive, so i never got one) and a 300 baud modem (yeah, this is sounding too much like "i had to walk up hill both ways to school in a blinding snowstorm barefoot every day"......). it's been my experience that software and operating systems are "bloatware" by nature. every time the computer "obeys" Moore's Law and doubles in capacity and speed, the software soon follows to fill up the new memory space and hard drive space. so the OS has grown from 8-12K of ultra-lean 8-bit code, to tens of Gigs of 64-bit code. some OS's are designed to be super user friendly, some are "geek-friendly". there are those that are a bit of both (Windows is both). i've tinkered with Linux over the years, and a long time ago wasn't impressed. i was by this time quite comfortable with Windows, but being a tech, and doing quite a bit of repair work with various DOS and Windows tools, wasn't happy with Microsoft's heavy-handed approach to disk tools. when you use Microsoft's FDISK tool to delete a partition, you better be really sure you don't want that data anymore, because MS FDISK wipes the partition table and the FAT. there were some DOS tools i had that would edit the partition table and nothing else, but DOS went bye-bye a long time ago. so i began tinkering with Linux again, since it'd disk tools had become very sophisticated. Linux FDISK edits ONLY the partition table, and can create and edit partitions for all known OSs. mkdosfs and dosfschk can format and error check FAT file systems, and there are also some tools for NTFS partitions. so i began working with Linux as a data recovery and disk "repair" tool. more recently i set up a pc in the home here as a dual-boot system with Linux and Win2k. Linux has become a lot more user friendly in the lat 10 years or so, including GUI environments with more features and customization than Windows. there are still things that must be done from the command line, but there was still a lot i was doing from the command line in Windows.

a couple of months ago, i got a new machine with a SATA controller in it (as well as an IDE) with a 1TB hdd and i swapped the hard drives (IDE) from the old machine into the new one. well now windows wouldn't boot, so i tried (3 or 4 times) to reinstall windows. windowa didn't like the new machine, and wouldn't reinstall because it didn't like the fact that there were "foreign" partitions it had to coexist with, and somewhere in the process deleted what it thought was an unneccesary partition, which turned out to be a FAT32 partition with 30G of data on it. fortunately, about 80% of that data i had elsewhere, and was able to restore later. but windows refused to share disk space with other OS'es, and really didn't like the SATA hardware at all. i finally gave up, and decided that i would stick with what was still working, Linux. there is a program loader that works under Linux and allows you to run Windows programs, called WINE (Wine Is NOT an Emulator). and has for almost ALL of the windows programs i can't do without worked extremely well. the other windows programs that wouldn't run? most of them have equivalents in Linux anyway that in some cases work even better than the windows version.

if you don't want to learn Linux, but can't afford Window$, i suggest you look at ReactOS which is a new operating system built on the same standards as WinXP, using the framework of winNT (but completely different code). it's developed by many of the same developers that work on the WINE project, but it's not Linux. ReactOS is free, and doesn't contain any of the security "holes" that windows has.

 

[Pommie]

Well, I finally got things working by going through the procedures on this page. I don't think I have the nvidia drivers as I got an error running the file from the Nvidia site. Something about not having the correct source installed. I'll try and figure it out in the morning.

Anyway, looks like I now have a working ubuntu install.

Mike.
BTW, if anyone can explain how I check which video drivers are installed, that would be helpful.

 

[Torben]

A few things guys, I have tried many times to get Linux on PCs. This thing about Linux being able to run on a 486 8Mb and compact, well that seemed possible once you had spent an age removing features you didn't need which ends up being a DOS equivalent, no GUI only command line. So that was a backward step, maybe OK for a dedicated system.

Yes there did seem to be a number of GUI available, I realise they are working examples which can be modified. But I they seemed to run 50 times slower than any Win PC, as in click a button wait 3 sec and the menu would pop up, click again..wait 3 sec and the text would pop up. I know this will be finding and setting up the various drivers but I had already been through Linux hell getting a working install.

The bootable CDrom dist was useful, it showed quite quicky Linux was not going to be worth the effort, seemed so slow to the point of being useless.
Yes I am no expert at Linux, naturally when you are an expert at something, it's easy. My question was, is Linux worth the time and effort in getting to grips with.

Was for me, might not be for you.

The problem with your argument is that by calling it a "DOS equivalent" you're forgetting that it's not. DOS was a single-tasking program, not a full multiprocess OS. It handled the bare minimum required to get one user running one process, using a segmented memory model requiring extremely slow thunking to get even a rough approximation of timeslicing going--which cannot be called true multitasking in any sense.

When you compare what DOS can do against what Linux can do--on a 486 or otherwise--you're comparing a tricycle with an Oshkosh truck. On that 486 with Linux, you can build a router, print server, http server, firewall, multiuser login gateway, complete with email server, FTP server, and so on. Not on DOS; not even close. And you don't have to fart around with TSRs to approximate background processing (those things were fun to code in some ways, but hardly optimal).

And I ran a full windowing system on 486 hardware on Linux for years with no trouble, using lightweight window managers such as fvwm2, which I could configure in ways Windows could only dream wistfully of.

Calling Linux at the command line or on a 486 a "DOS equivalent" just means you don't know what DOS *or* Linux is.

Also, the Live CDs are slow because CDs are incredibly slow compared to hard drives. That gives you no indication whatsoever of the speed of an *installed* distro--it's just to give you a taste of what the look and feel are like.


Torben

 

[Torben]

Well, I finally got things working by going through the procedures on this page. I don't think I have the nvidia drivers as I got an error running the file from the Nvidia site. Something about not having the correct source installed. I'll try and figure it out in the morning.

Anyway, looks like I now have a working ubuntu install.

Mike.
BTW, if anyone can explain how I check which video drivers are installed, that would be helpful.

Hey Mike,

If you can post what machine and graphics card you have and what the actual file you used and the text of the error message you get are, I'll see what I can dig up after work today. I know I have an nVidia card in this laptop and it wasn't much trouble at all to get it working.


Regards,

Torben

 

[Hero999]

The minimum Linux GUI is too bloated for anything with under 16MB of RAM, however you do get a relatively modern OS that will run some new software, which would don't get from installing Windows 95.

 

[MrAl]

Hi,


I've had problems trying to install Linux to my machine too. I tried
two Ubuntu versions and neither one would boot. It might be the
graphics card driver, but who knows.
I havent tried any commercial versions, if there still are any that is.

I have had some success with the older Mandrake Move (live version)
but i couldnt get that to save the settings for the next reboot.

 

[Torben]

The minimum Linux GUI is too bloated for anything with under 16MB of RAM, however you do get a relatively modern OS that will run some new software, which would don't get from installing Windows 95.

You seem to be comparing a modern Linux GUI such as Gnome with a 14-year-old operating system (Win95). In 1995, then-current X incarnations could run usably in 8 MB RAM. (My current Gnome's config files alone take up ~6.5MB of disc space by comparison).

By 'relatively modern' I suppose you're comparing Linux to Solaris or Inferno or something? I've been wanting to try Inferno (just for the hell of it) and now that Solaris has been opened up, that's looking pretty sweet too and the only thing holding me back is my love for the Debian and Ubuntu repositories. I would love to see something like dtrace on Linux (among other things). There are a few very cool items out there in the OS world these days which are way ahead of Linux, but nothing you're likely to find on the desktops of any but the geekiest crowd.


Torben

 

[unclejed613]

also you must understand that any OS on a "live CD" is going to run slow, because it's on a CD. running from a CD, there's no swap space for the memory, and the whole linux image is running from a RAM drive, and fetching files off the CD. running linux from a hard drive, things work a lot faster. the only thing a live cd is good for (other than as a troubleshooting tool) is to see if that distro has the software and features you want. you definitely won't be able to test drive the performance and speed part of it unless you run it from a full install on a hard drive.

 

[Pommie]

Torben,

I followed the instructions here. All went well until the nvidia installer ran (sudo sh /usr/src/nvidia-driver).

Here's the error log,

Using: nvidia-installer ncurses user interface
-> License accepted.
-> Installing NVIDIA driver version 185.18.31.
-> No precompiled kernel interface was found to match your kernel; would you li
ke the installer to attempt to download a kernel interface for your kernel f
rom the NVIDIA ftp site (ftp://download.nvidia.com (Answer: Yes)
ERROR: Unable to connect to download.nvidia.com (unknown host)
-> No matching precompiled kernel interface was found on the NVIDIA ftp site;
this means that the installer will need to compile a kernel interface for
your kernel.
-> Performing CC sanity check with CC="cc".
-> Performing CC version check with CC="cc".
ERROR: Unable to find the kernel source tree for the currently running kernel.
Please make sure you have installed the kernel source files for your
kernel and that they are properly configured; on Red Hat Linux systems,
for example, be sure you have the 'kernel-source' or 'kernel-devel' RPM
installed. If you know the correct kernel source files are installed,
you may specify the kernel source path with the '--kernel-source-path'
command line option.
ERROR: Installation has failed. Please see the file
'/var/log/nvidia-installer.log' for details. You may find suggestions
on fixing installation problems in the README available on the Linux
driver download page at Welcome to NVIDIA - World Leader in Visual Computing Technologies.

The card is a GeForce6150SE with an AMD64 and the file I downloaded was NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-185.18.31-pkg2.run and so I skipped the ftp step in the above link.

I'm wondering if my network card is working when I stop gdm.

Thanks,

Mike.

 

[Torben]

Hi Mike,

Can you get into the Gnome desktop at all using the default generic driver? If so you may be able to simply get away without having to go through all that.

First go to System=>Administration=>Hardware Drivers and see if the nVidia 180 driver is installed. If so, select it and close, and then log out and back in. If it's not installed, keep reading. . .

Go to System=>Administration=>Software Sources and make sure all the checkboxes on the 'Ubuntu Software' tab are checked. Close it. Then open System=>Administration=>Synaptic Package Manager and click 'Reload'. Now highlight 'All' in the list to the left, and type 'nvidia' into the Search box. Now go to the main window in Synaptic and scroll down until you see 'nvidia-glx-180', right-click on it, and select 'Mark for Installation' from the popup menu. If it asks you any questions (probably along the lines of "This will also install X, Y, and Z"), say OK. Now click the Apply button. It should then install the drivers. After this you should be able to go back to the Hardware Drivers item I mentioned above and activate it if you haven't already.

I can't remember if it prompts you to restart X (or your computer) after you're done but I would imagine so. Hopefully at this point all is well.

Sorry but I'm writing this largely from memory and from peeking to see what I've got installed and enabled. I know I didn't have to compile anything and I'm also running 9.04.

Anyway, give it a shot and let us know how it goes. We're having a family BBQ right now so I have to go be social but I'll check back in a little bit. Good luck!


Torben

 

[Pommie]

There is nothing in hardware drivers and the nvidia-glx-180 is installed. I marked it for reinstallation and applied but the hardware drivers dialog is still empty. I'm assuming that the driver isn't installed as I can't enable any effects at all in System->Preferences->Appearance->visual effects.

Mike.

 

[Torben]

There is nothing in hardware drivers and the nvidia-glx-180 is installed. I marked it for reinstallation and applied but the hardware drivers dialog is still empty. I'm assuming that the driver isn't installed as I can't enable any effects at all in System->Preferences->Appearance->visual effects.

Mike.

Hm. . .think I messed up. Now that I check the list of supported cards, it looks like the 180 driver set may not support the 6150SE. It's listed as supported by the 173 driver, though, so give that a shot.

I'm still looking for something more concrete to give you on this. Unfortunately nVidia hasn't seen fit to release the code for the drivers so they aren't just included like many other hardware drivers are.


Torben

 

[be80be]

Mike how you going to get the files you need You need to install this build-essential
and then it will build the driver.
Net card not working add a cheap realtek net card and run this
sudo su apt-get install build-essential

Then build your diver

 

[be80be]

Your net card is working just run
sudo su apt-get install build-essential
then rebuild your diver
that will fix this

kernel and that they are properly configured; on Red Hat Linux systems,
for example, be sure you have the 'kernel-source' or 'kernel-devel' RPM
installed. If you know the correct kernel source files are installed,
you may specify the kernel source path with the '--kernel-source-path'
command line option.
ERROR: Installation has failed. Please see the file

 

[Pommie]

The 173 drivers cause it to boot in low res mode so I think it is the 180 (or 185) drivers that are required. According to this page I need NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-185.18.31-pkg2.run for GeForce 6 series and Linux 64 bit. How do I know if I am on Linux64 or Linux32?

Mike.