linux?

[helios]

FreeBSD and OpenBSD (and probably NetBSD, too) are completely binary compatible with Linux

Shirley, you must be joking.
The compatibility layer only applies to userland. Kernel drivers are completely different types of programs and use the system on an entirely different level. Hell, it's not unusual for drivers to have to be recompiled between different versions of the same kernel. Different kernels practically require a complete rewrite.

[chrisname]

I was only referring to userland. I wasn't talking about kernel mode, that's obviously a completely different story. Most userland programs are compatible with lots of different kinds of hardware (except processor architectures) without even recompiling; but obviously drivers are specific to the hardware they... drive.

Oh, and don't call me Shirley (I saw what you did there).

[helios]

Ah! But!

The problem is it's drivers are not as developed as Linux's

[chrisname]

That's because the FreeBSD developers only put drivers in the kernel if they're good enough, whereas the Linux developers seem to care more about making sure there's no proprietary drivers in the kernel than if the GPL'd drivers are actually any good.

And yes, I realise I just walked into a trap.

Edit: maybe I should read my own posts :)
Edit 2: also, stop exploiting me. It's 5:32 AM here :(

[Bazzy]

OnymousIllusion wrote:

has anyone hear of dual booting linux on a macbook ? I look it up on youtube but its always about dual booting on a external hard drive.

I know that someone managed to dual boot Linux and Mac.
Here is the video tutorial he followed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djc4q6PRyBc

[moorecm]

BTW, I thought I'd add to my previous post. I think I've neglected a few good points. I basically recommend Ubuntu for anyone who is going to be completely new to Linux. Ubuntu installation is simple, hardware support is great, and there is a lot of help available online because of its popularity.

For those who have some Linux experience, I would recommend Fedora. Fedora would be good to familiarize with because it branched off of Red Hat and shares many similarities. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very common in the business world.

Although there is certainly benefits to gaining experience with different distributions, I find that what I learn at work, on RHEL 5, usually applies at home on Fedora and vice versa. I just thought this was worth a mention. :D

[chrisname]

@moorecm,
I'm on Ubuntu now. I would recommend it to anyone who is
a. New to Linux (I would point first-time users to Linux Mint which is an even easier to use Ubuntu derivative)
b. Looking for a fast, easy to use and, albeit unstable and slow (for a Linux distribution at least), faster and more stable alternative to windows (I don't know if it's faster or more stable than OSX -- my guess is that it's about the same, maybe a little faster (or at least, easier on the graphics card) due to OSX's GUI)).
c. Lazy (me)

[1yR4jE8b]

I've been using Mandriva Linux for years now, and IMO it is the absolute most complete and simple to use distro to use. The Mandriva Control Center for configuring your computer is absolutely fantastic and overall it's an extremely simple and fun distro to use. I've been trying every single version of Ubuntu/Fedora/OpenSuse etc... every time a new one comes out and I always go back to Mandriva. It's faster, smoother, and just plain better IMO.

[helios]

But can it run Crysis?

[chrisname]

Will it blend?

[Bazzy]

I agree with darkestfright, Mandriva is even more user friendly than Ubuntu

[S6k9GNh0]

I wouldn't mind Ubuntu so bad if apt-get wasn't such crap. Every single time I've used Ubuntu, I get pissed off within the first thirty minutes of use since the package manager GUI usually freezes, is bugged, slow, etc. and the terminal based tools have 6 or 7 different executables. It's irritating as crap. Fedora's YUM or Arch's C based Pacman is nice and easy with advanced flexibility for those who need to get technical. Fedora even has a GUI which in my opinion is more simplistic and easier to use than Ubuntu's.

[chrisname]

How is apt-get crap? I've never used the GUI version, when I want something, I use the terminal and guess what the package name is (works for apt-get and pacman quite well). If I can't guess I use Google.

As for "6 or 7 executables", I've only had to remember two -- apt-get and apt-cache. apt-get is to update the package list, upgrade all packages or a specific package, install a package, remove a package or autoclean or autoremove all unneeded packages. It also does things like check for dependencies and stuff but I've never had to use that. apt-cache on the other hand is for searching.

[Bazzy]

As for "6 or 7 executables", I've only had to remember two

My shell sives me these:

apt-cache             apt-file              apt-mark
apt-cdrom             apt-ftparchive        apt-sortpkgs
apt-config            apt-get               
apt-extracttemplates  apt-key

[chrisname]

I've only ever used -cache and -get. I didn't even know the others existed.

[moorecm]

I've used tgz, rpms, apt-get, and yum. yum is my preference, by a substantial margin.

[MSkillet]

I personally recommend ubuntu or easy peasy linux even though easy peasy linux is made from ubuntu its really nice on netbooks also the distro depends on your cpu if its an 'amd' locate the amd iso and if its an 'intel' cpu locate the 'ixxxx' (xxxx is the number that the cpu is i think its 1388)

best of luck

[helios]

if its an 'amd' locate the amd iso and if its an 'intel' cpu locate the 'ixxxx' (xxxx is the number that the cpu is i think its 1388)

I believe you're confusing CPU vendor with instruction set. AMD64 is the name AMD gave to their 64-bit expansion of x86, so it can be used even when the speaker is really talking about x86-64 in general, not specifically about the AMD implementation. The Intel implementation is called EM64T, by the way.
i386 is generally used as a synonym of x86, which is the core instruction set included in every Intel and Intel clone CPU since the 80386.

IA-64 is, however, not x86-64. This is a mistake a lot of people make. IA-64 is Itanium.

[Albatross]

I recommend building your own Linux distro from scratch. That way, you can make it perfect (depending on your level of skill).

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

-Albatross

[chrisname]

I wouldn't recommend LFS to someone who has never used Linux before.

That way, you can make it perfect

Well, not really.