Q. The newest update of Ubuntu (Natty Narwhal) is shit. I picked Ubuntu because I wanted to be able to use mp3s and flash with the least amount of trouble but now it's just getting harder and harder to work as a programmer.
I would like a distro that would support these things and allow easy install but I don't need the pretty gui and user friendly interface. If I wanted that I would have bought a mac.
I would like a distro that would support these things and allow easy install but I don't need the pretty gui and user friendly interface. If I wanted that I would have bought a mac.
A. I'm not sure what you mean when you said you don't want a pretty gui, because most people who want their proprietary drivers and codecs enabled out of the box want the pretty gui. If you are looking for a more simplistic look i would recommend a different desktop enviorment other than kde or gnome. Perhaps a light one like xfice or enlightenment.
Well, i'm not sure if it was the new unity desktop enviorment that you didnt' like or ubuntu in general, so i'll suggest a few work arounds for both. Zorin os is one of the easiest distributions i have ever used. It is based upon ubuntu, but it uses the older classic gnome desktop envelopment (2.32 i think it is.) It looks very similar to windows actually, and everything works out of the box. But you still have the ubuntu tools such as ubuntu tweak and the software center, so if you just didn't like the distribution in general that may not be the right solution. Also, kubuntu is ubuntu with the kde desktop environmental. But again, that is just a unity work around, and doesn't change ubuntu in general.
PcLinuxOS is very easy to use as well. It is based on Mandriva, so it has nothing to do with ubuntu or debian. Everything works perfectly out of the box, and it is very easy to customize. It comes with any desktop environment you want, be it kde, gnome, or enlightenment. It has everything enabled out of the box.
There are certain distrobutions such as tiny core and bodhi linux that are fairly simply and have a very minimalist approach, so that you can completely customize its look yourself. Therefore, as it comes it is very minimalist, lightweight, and simple. However, due to its minimalist approach not everything you need will already be installed, so just know that if you go down this rout.
Mandriva, Pclinuxos, zorinos, and as already mentioned linux mint are easy to use and come working out of the box. Distrobutions such as bodhi linux and tiny core allow a more simplistic approach that still provides a fairly easy experience. But the fact remains, that if you want an advanced or simplistic interface you are going to have to go for a more advanced distrobution where not everything will work right away, and it will take time to get going. I hope one of these will suite your needs, email me if you have questions.
Well, i'm not sure if it was the new unity desktop enviorment that you didnt' like or ubuntu in general, so i'll suggest a few work arounds for both. Zorin os is one of the easiest distributions i have ever used. It is based upon ubuntu, but it uses the older classic gnome desktop envelopment (2.32 i think it is.) It looks very similar to windows actually, and everything works out of the box. But you still have the ubuntu tools such as ubuntu tweak and the software center, so if you just didn't like the distribution in general that may not be the right solution. Also, kubuntu is ubuntu with the kde desktop environmental. But again, that is just a unity work around, and doesn't change ubuntu in general.
PcLinuxOS is very easy to use as well. It is based on Mandriva, so it has nothing to do with ubuntu or debian. Everything works perfectly out of the box, and it is very easy to customize. It comes with any desktop environment you want, be it kde, gnome, or enlightenment. It has everything enabled out of the box.
There are certain distrobutions such as tiny core and bodhi linux that are fairly simply and have a very minimalist approach, so that you can completely customize its look yourself. Therefore, as it comes it is very minimalist, lightweight, and simple. However, due to its minimalist approach not everything you need will already be installed, so just know that if you go down this rout.
Mandriva, Pclinuxos, zorinos, and as already mentioned linux mint are easy to use and come working out of the box. Distrobutions such as bodhi linux and tiny core allow a more simplistic approach that still provides a fairly easy experience. But the fact remains, that if you want an advanced or simplistic interface you are going to have to go for a more advanced distrobution where not everything will work right away, and it will take time to get going. I hope one of these will suite your needs, email me if you have questions.
What does anybody here think about one person undertaking the development of an entire operating system?
Q. No, not Windows, Linux, Mac; that's commercial-quality, insanely difficult to manage, and beyond the scope of many books.
I mean a simple 16-bit bootloader, and maybe some conditional-based microarchitecture-specific logic, data comparisons, maybe 100 KB of memory use at max, small hangman style game, and possibly moving up to a super-tiny (SUPER, SUPER, TINY) GUI.
I know most software developers, like me, would be skeptical of this, but I'm not kidding.
I really plan to work my way through with this in some rational form.
Does this sound crazy, just one person doing and managing the resources, even in just a 16-bit BIOS-dictated environment with services helping from it?
For the GUI I'd best switch to Protected Mode (or 32-bit mode) to stretch out and solve the memory problem.
But that would likely take me years to ever get that far and complete of an OS somewhat.
I mean a simple 16-bit bootloader, and maybe some conditional-based microarchitecture-specific logic, data comparisons, maybe 100 KB of memory use at max, small hangman style game, and possibly moving up to a super-tiny (SUPER, SUPER, TINY) GUI.
I know most software developers, like me, would be skeptical of this, but I'm not kidding.
I really plan to work my way through with this in some rational form.
Does this sound crazy, just one person doing and managing the resources, even in just a 16-bit BIOS-dictated environment with services helping from it?
For the GUI I'd best switch to Protected Mode (or 32-bit mode) to stretch out and solve the memory problem.
But that would likely take me years to ever get that far and complete of an OS somewhat.
A. Doesn't sound crazy to me, but it would be a long and involved process. You could look to old computer systems for examples of how to work with very little memory by today's standards. The IBM 1401 was a transistor-based computer and typically maxed out at 16K core memory, and could be special ordered with a max of 32K core.
The Apple ][ came with 16K RAM, and maxed out at 48K. While the base OS was stored in ROM, the DOS (disk operating system) extension occupied some of RAM.
Honeywell mainframes of the 1970's used 4K overlay modules to minimize memory usage. Just a simple command like "create directory" might run through 1 or 2 dozen overlay modules.
However, all of the above examples ran command line interfaces (CLI) with no attempt at a GUI. GUI has a relatively high memory demand.
All of the above OS's were also all written in assembler: IBM 360 and later mainframe OS in BAL (basic assembly language), Honeywell GCOS-III was written in GMAP (General Macro Assembler Program), and Apple OS in 6502 assembler. But I imagine that isn't necessary today unless you really want to save every byte possible.
The Apple ][ came with 16K RAM, and maxed out at 48K. While the base OS was stored in ROM, the DOS (disk operating system) extension occupied some of RAM.
Honeywell mainframes of the 1970's used 4K overlay modules to minimize memory usage. Just a simple command like "create directory" might run through 1 or 2 dozen overlay modules.
However, all of the above examples ran command line interfaces (CLI) with no attempt at a GUI. GUI has a relatively high memory demand.
All of the above OS's were also all written in assembler: IBM 360 and later mainframe OS in BAL (basic assembly language), Honeywell GCOS-III was written in GMAP (General Macro Assembler Program), and Apple OS in 6502 assembler. But I imagine that isn't necessary today unless you really want to save every byte possible.
Best Linux for an older computer with not so great specs?
Q. I have an old machine kicking around and I want to get linux running on it. It runs windows XP right now but it has very little RAM. I am not very technical at all so any help would be greatly appreciated :)
A. DSL, Puppy or Tiny Core will run on almost any hardware, but, as they are all quickly downloadable, try them all & see which you like best. And don't dismiss any of the "mainframe" sized distros, as they can run well on limited hardware, as has been said.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment