searching for a linux distro

When you finished ranting, give me an example of something you claim can't be done without the CLI. Five will get you ten I can tell you how.

 

This is the truth PCLinuxOS is the easiest by far. And it's Forum is friendly to new Linux & or PCLOS users. There's a link in my signature.

 

Agreed, PCLinuxOS is quite a cool distro: control center, hardware device manager (!!), preinstalled codecs for common media formats, ATI/NVIDIA drivers included by default, GUI frontend for firewall settings, tons of preinstalled themes, and other nice touches. The only bad thing I can say about it is that there seems to be no way to set the default screen brightness at startup, and that I couldn't figure out how to put widgets on the desktop like Kubuntu. I don't understand why Ubuntu is more popular than it, if it weren't for the graphics corruption issue at logout for me I'd probably be using it happily right now.

 

With reference to the original question, I agree with the others - PCLinuxOS is the best GUI newbie distro there is.

As for the CLI, personally I love it for certain tasks. It's very powerful and fast. For instance, when installing software how can a simple "apt-get install application-name" be harder than downloading and installing the conventional Windows way or a synaptic UI?

 

My vote also goes for PCLinux. It runs great on two of my older machines. However, this distro won't even load to the live desktop on my machine with dual GeForce 7900 GTX cards on an Athlon 64 x2 4400+, A8N32-SLI Deluxe m/board; somehow it hates the GPUs. Ubuntu will install on this machine, but then installing the restricted accelerated drivers for 3D capability absolutely kills the install, as it's then not even possible to boot back into the desktop. Also, one of the plugins for the media player in Ubuntu crashed the player.

So it seems hardware might dictate how well or poorly a particular Linux distro might run on a particular machine.

 

I think what it might be hating is either the SLI or dual video cards. Dual video sounds like a hardcore gaming setup. Nobody recommends Linux for that.

If you want Linux only on the machine, try pulling one of the video cards. If it is a gaming machine that you want Linux as a second OS, put the Linux distro in a virtual session. (Remember, don't try to install the video drivers in a virtual session. The video in that case is controlled by the virtual software. I recommend Virtual Box but others may differ.)

 

Ubuntu doesn't install the restricted drivers or media codecs because it is illegal to do so in some places. But there are distros based on Ubuntu, such as Mint, that go ahead and do it anyway.

My actual favorite, which I'm hoping will be out with the latest stuff this month, is Super Ubuntu. Not only does it have all the media codecs installed but it installs Wine for you. Anyone who has tried using Wine knows what a headache that can be.

 

It's an early 2006 custom built Voodoo Omen I just bought from my brother; I couldn't resist the $1200 price tag for this beast I was just looking to have Linux installed dual boot with XP, but it looks to be out of the question on this machine unless, as you suggest, one of the GPUs comes out, but I don't want to do that. Its in-built liquid cooling cools the cpu, GPUs and Nvidia chipset, so it would involve some tricky work to dealing with the cooling system to do this.

 

For SLI, use the latest nvidia or ati drivers, not the one from repos and then just execute sudo nvidia-xconfig --sli=Auto

 

He has to get it to load before he can do that. Using the VESA option to boot might work to get it to load.

 

So what's the problem with using Virtual Box instead of dual booting? Actually, I prefer that to dual booting anyway. You can have both OS's going at the same time and just click back and forth. I have dual monitors so I can have both "on screen" at the same time.

Then, if you need the extra resources for something like rendering, you can just shut down the virtual session.

 

Virtualbox?

Say goodbye to all your GPUs' fancy capabilities in the guest system.

 

He can do it from command tty as well if he can't get into gui.

 

Well, if you add the Medibuntu repo and perhaps the Wine repo you'll have everything you've mentioned in a "normal" Ubuntu.

 

But it won't be installed for you. Wine can be very difficult to setup. And, for the newbie, so can getting the codecs to work. Sure, you can do it, and so can I. But we are talking about what's the easiest distro for the person trying to switch from Windoze.

For the person who knows what they are doing, Ubuntu has everything you need. But for the Windoze convert that keeps harping about "something that just works," Mint or Super Ubuntu can be a better choice.

 

Agreed, most Windows user get into panic when faced with a situation, already they are expecting their Linux distro to work right out of the box and when that don't happen, anxiety attack.

 

And that is what PCLOS does on more different hardware situations OOTB than ANY other Linux distro.

 

So does Super Ubuntu and Mint and all in x64 environment unlike PCLOS and with choice of Gnome, XFCE or KDE.

 

Nothing else compares to apt-get and wget for ease of use and convenience. I installed Apache 2, Php and Mysql just yesterday and configured the lot using the CLI, not bad for someone who's close to retiring age.

BTW, the whole process was relatively painless and all are working together beautifully.

 

I'm running PCLOS on a x64 capable C2Duo. I'm not missing the minuscule if any benefit of running a x64 Linux OS. All Linux is good. But I stand by my statement that PCLOS works OOTB better on more hardware than any other Linux distro.

 

ok, finished ranting now

first i like to apologise to lodore. i wasn't actually had a go at you at all. i happened to choose your post to quote because of the line "no one forced you" which was the main point of my post.

now lewmur (with very calm voice), i wasn't saying that there's something that can't be done with cli, but i would prefer to be able to do it in gui.

i understand sudo apt-get is faster, easier etc, but only if you know what to apt-get

for me it's like, .....errr....what was that again wait, let me google the net....... and guess what? google again next time because i've forgotten the command

i couldn't even understand how these ppl know what to sudo apt-get lol...

oh, believe it or not, i was actually quite comfortable with dos and batch files. but ever since windows, i just can't go back at all.....

the best example of what i'm talking about is the control center in pclinuxos. that was the winner for me. you get to tweak the system in gui!!! first in linux

 

Hello,
Its ok I understand now.

I still dont quite understand the logic of apt-get
since you can use for example apt-get remove firefox
get remove doesnt even make sence lol.
yum install firefox and yum remove firefox makes sence (yum commands from distros such as fedora)

but back to the topic i still use batch files on windows for certain tasks such as defrag (jkdefrag) and backup (image for windows command version)

if you wish to move files around freely you can install the nautilus gksu i think its called. then just right click the folder and run as admin and type in rootpassword.

Most people are so used to gui's now its hard to go back even if you used to use commandline all the time.
both have their pro's and cons.
with distros like ubuntu,opensuse,pclinuxos,mandriva etc you shouldnt have to use commandline.

 

You still don 't get it. There is almost nothing that can't be done using GUI. The CLI method is just the one you'll get in most help forums for the simple reason that in most cases its easier. You want to claim that there is no GUI solution and that is simply not true. One does NOT need to use the CLI in order to use Ubuntu.

Prove your point, if you can. You have yet to give me an example to demonstrate your contention that the CLI is a necessity. What is there that can't be done using a GUI method?

You can install every application available in Ubuntu and NEVER type a single apt-get command. Typing the apt-get command is just easier than "point and clicking" your way through several steps to accomplish the same task. But you CAN "point and click" to get it done. That is the difference. In Windoze you have no choice but to "point and click." In Linux, you can do it EITHER way.

Let me state this as clearly as I can. The CLI in Linux is NOT a necessity. It is a CHOICE. It is a CHOICE that is NOT available to Windoze users. You do NOT have to use the CLI in Linux. You can choose to use it or you can choose to use the more difficult GUI that is the ONLY method available to Windoze users.

 

Depends on what you define as "nothing." Do you mean nothing in the sense of everyday operations? Then, yes, in the day to day operations of the average user, one will not have to use the CLI. But, those who are more advanced will understand that there are some things that can only be done with the CLI. A good example is shell scripting. Another example might be setting IPtables rules.

 

Go to Phoronix and check the encoding tests, x64 distro beats out x32 nicely, I feel that if I have invested in x64 CPU, why should I throttle it back using x32 OS. I do agree about PCLOS being a out of the box functioning distro and it was my favorite for a long while till Ubuntux64 came along, however Ubuntu has equivalent support for hardware with latest Jaunty and they have taken pains to make it there at the cost of wraith for its users.