Topic: Mint Linux - the Linux I now recommend

[Commander Maxillius]

I loaded Ubuntu back on my laptop for giggles and also to try to get GRASS GIS working on it.  The mplayer plugin seems to be working better than I remember it working.  I was also able to install flash from firefox instead of having to do it manually.  These are all good things.  As for GRASS, the packages that are available through Ubuntu repositories are nearly 2 years old despite current versions of GRASS being available in Debian sid repositories.  Looks as if I will have to compile from sources. 

This is something else that is a pain in the butt with Linux, this kind of techno-geek environment.  Groups that develop apps for linux don't guarantee compatibility with any particular distro and seem to leave it up to the technical skills of their users to fill in their support gap.  Also with so many distros out there, there isn't a consistent development environment.  Seems to me if you are developing for Windows, you know pretty much what your environment is. 

I mean, seriously, I have never had to compile anything from sources for Windows to merely use an application.  Why is it so for Linux?

Answer:  Because there are so many different flavors of Linux and some don't interoperate at all, while others will but only minimally.  Once there's one version the entire community agrees on, MS is doomed.

[Javora]

I loaded Ubuntu back on my laptop for giggles and also to try to get GRASS GIS working on it.  The mplayer plugin seems to be working better than I remember it working.  I was also able to install flash from firefox instead of having to do it manually.  These are all good things.  As for GRASS, the packages that are available through Ubuntu repositories are nearly 2 years old despite current versions of GRASS being available in Debian sid repositories.  Looks as if I will have to compile from sources. 

This is something else that is a pain in the butt with Linux, this kind of techno-geek environment.  Groups that develop apps for linux don't guarantee compatibility with any particular distro and seem to leave it up to the technical skills of their users to fill in their support gap.  Also with so many distros out there, there isn't a consistent development environment.  Seems to me if you are developing for Windows, you know pretty much what your environment is. 

I mean, seriously, I have never had to compile anything from sources for Windows to merely use an application.  Why is it so for Linux?

Answer:  Because there are so many different flavors of Linux and some don't interoperate at all, while others will but only minimally.  Once there's one version the entire community agrees on, MS is doomed.

That's most of the answer.  You left out the part about new versions of Linux coming out each month or so.  One or two of those versions will be labeled the new "it" version and people will clamor to it until the next "it" version comes out.  Mint Linux is a perfect example, it is the new "it" (ie hip, cool, etc) version and will remain so until it is replaced by the next latest greatest version of Linux.  When that happens most people will dump Mint Linux for whatever is next leaving just a few stragglers behind.  Then the cycle will repeat itself about a month later.  And people wonder why Linux community can't get themselves all on the same page.      

[Nemesis]

I loaded Ubuntu back on my laptop for giggles and also to try to get GRASS GIS working on it.  The mplayer plugin seems to be working better than I remember it working.  I was also able to install flash from firefox instead of having to do it manually.  These are all good things.  As for GRASS, the packages that are available through Ubuntu repositories are nearly 2 years old despite current versions of GRASS being available in Debian sid repositories.  Looks as if I will have to compile from sources. 

Alternately you can go to the official GRASS GIS site and download the binaries explicitly made for Ubuntu.  You have to go there for up to date source anyhow don't you?

This is something else that is a pain in the butt with Linux, this kind of techno-geek environment.  Groups that develop apps for linux don't guarantee compatibility with any particular distro and seem to leave it up to the technical skills of their users to fill in their support gap.  Also with so many distros out there, there isn't a consistent development environment.  Seems to me if you are developing for Windows, you know pretty much what your environment is. 

Fortunately the people who brought out the Linux Standards Base are continuing their work under the Linux Foundation and developing standards for installation as well.

Most developers do packabe up for the most relevant distributions. 

I believe that Ubuntu can use the Debian repositories and any Debian targeted binaries.  Ubuntu is derived from Debian afterall and hasn't gone in incompatible directions.

I mean, seriously, I have never had to compile anything from sources for Windows to merely use an application.  Why is it so for Linux?

I have never had to compile anything from source for Linux.  It is nice to know that if I ever need to or want to  that the option is there however.  I can only wonder why you seem to run into it all the time.

[Lepton]

I don't know about that.  While I am sure it is true that people flit about from one distro to the next, I have pretty much stuck with what was popular and stayed there, not that I have used Linux much.  Back in 2000 or so, I was using or trying to use Red Hat 7 something.  It's actually a real testament to linux develop that I no longer have to write down all my system specs and enter them manually as I did when I first installed Red Hat. 

A couple of years after that I was using Debian which I think was pretty popular at the time.  And now, I choose Ubuntu.  I have to admit the name kind of turned me off at first, but it seemed like a solid product.  So when I get a distro, I use it and only it, then again I don't use Linux on any regular basis.  I am a dabbler.  Those folks who change distros every month are what I would call linux hobbyist.  Part of what they enjoy is installing the stuff, and getting it work, etc.  It's a hobby.  The Linux user just wants it to work and the dabbler like me finds it all a bit too unfamiliar to stay around very long.

I don't think it would be a huge problem if people were moving around from one distro to another if those distros contained basically the same core packages but when you've got distros using different version of things like GNOME or KDE or even different kernels, that seems to create substantial problems in terms of developing and deploying applications that will work reliably across distros.

I am not sure we can totally fault the users when the developers of these distros haven't sat down and agreed to work within a common framework so that they aren't competing amongst themselves, but more so against Microsoft directly.

[Lepton]

As to the Ubuntu GRASS GIS packages, I already tried that.  That's the first place I went as I know GRASS as GRASS and not as yet another mere package in a sea of packages.  I added the repositories, apt-get install, etc.  It did not work when launching from terminal.  If I use the 6.0.2 version that is available in standard Ubuntu reps, it's fine, but from that other source, it doesn't work. 

And this is precisely what I mean about linux, that GRASS GIS site has links to binaries for 6, yes SIX, different linux distros and ONE for Windows.  Why does it take 6 different versions to cover all the Linux bases?  That's pretty ridiculous.  And most of those distro-specific packages are maintained by users, USERS, not by the guys producing the application.  I think GRASS is great.  It's basically a $4,000 program for free, but the fact that there are six different sets of precompiled binaries for Linux is silly to me.  If they were dealing with a more unified framework, I am sure that 6 versions would not be needed.  Are there 6 different versions of GNOME or KDE in each of these distros?  I sure hope not.

[Nemesis]

You left out the part about new versions of Linux coming out each month or so.  One or two of those versions will be labeled the new "it" version and people will clamor to it until the next "it" version comes out.  Mint Linux is a perfect example, it is the new "it" (ie hip, cool, etc) version and will remain so until it is replaced by the next latest greatest version of Linux.  When that happens most people will dump Mint Linux for whatever is next leaving just a few stragglers behind.  Then the cycle will repeat itself about a month later.  And people wonder why Linux community can't get themselves all on the same page.      

Lets look at the major (in market share) versions in North America of Linux that I recall.

First there was Slackware.  A very early distribution and still around but aimed at the truly knowledgable. 

Redhat the first commercial Linux to be really successful.  Still around after years and still among the leaders of the pack.  Its been in the black for years.  Apparently they are going to begin marketing preinstalled Redhat to businesses on desktops.  HP is marketing them  on the Desktop in Australia now.

Suse.  Now owned by Novell but originally a German distribution (and I believe derived from Slackware.  Currently being pushed by ... Microsoft of all companies. 

Ubuntu.  The only recent one (Oct 2004).  Unlike the others they are targetting the end users desktop and due to popular demand are being marketed that way by Dell.

Do minor new brands pop up and gain a following?   Definitely, but unless they have something new they stay on the fringes.  There are some that have tried for the Big Time but didn't make it Corel (now Xandros - Debian derived), Lindows (now Linspire and now Ubuntu derived), Simply Mepis (now Ubuntu derived). 

There are also those that have big followings in other areas of the world, Mandriva for example (formerly Mandrake and Connectiva) is popular in Europe and South America in spite of almost being destroyed by "professional management" brought in by venture capitalists.

There are also those that have a large amount of influence but I wouldn't really say market share.  The King of those is Debian.  Its influence is shown by how many distributions are derived either from it or from a derivative of it (Debian to Ubuntu to Linspire/Mepis/Mint etc as an example)

Linux Mint does not make the list as it is NOT one of the major versions.  I only found out about it from reading an English Linux magazine.  I recommend it not for "cool or hip" but because from my viewpoint for many people it has reached the point of being "Good Enough".  One way for me to tell that is because it finally allowed me to change from primarily Windows (2000Pro) but using Linux as well to the reverse.  Outside of various things where you may be experiencing a vendor lock in it is good enough for the average (non gaming) user.  Gaming is the primary reason my other machine still has Windows on it.

[Nemesis]

As to the Ubuntu GRASS GIS packages, I already tried that.  That's the first place I went as I know GRASS as GRASS and not as yet another mere package in a sea of packages.  I added the repositories, apt-get install, etc.  It did not work when launching from terminal.  If I use the 6.0.2 version that is available in standard Ubuntu reps, it's fine, but from that other source, it doesn't work. 

And this is precisely what I mean about linux, that GRASS GIS site has links to binaries for 6, yes SIX, different linux distros and ONE for Windows.  Why does it take 6 different versions to cover all the Linux bases?  That's pretty ridiculous.  And most of those distro-specific packages are maintained by users, USERS, not by the guys producing the application.  I think GRASS is great.  It's basically a $4,000 program for free, but the fact that there are six different sets of precompiled binaries for Linux is silly to me.  If they were dealing with a more unified framework, I am sure that 6 versions would not be needed.  Are there 6 different versions of GNOME or KDE in each of these distros?  I sure hope not.

It actually has NO link for windows.  It has a Unix/Linux version that is supposed to work under Cygwin on Windows.

What Is Cygwin?
# Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows. It consists of two parts: A DLL (cygwin1.dll) which acts as a Linux API emulation layer providing substantial Linux API functionality.
# A collection of tools which provide Linux look and feel.

The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially released x86 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, with the exception of Windows CE.

Note that the official support for Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Me will be discontinued with the next major version (1.7.0) of Cygwin.

The Debian version should also work under Ubuntu and one version is "Generic" and should be workable as well with more difficutly.

[Nemesis]

A couple of years after that I was using Debian which I think was pretty popular at the time.  And now, I choose Ubuntu.  I have to admit the name kind of turned me off at first, but it seemed like a solid product.  So when I get a distro, I use it and only it, then again I don't use Linux on any regular basis.  I am a dabbler.  Those folks who change distros every month are what I would call linux hobbyist.  Part of what they enjoy is installing the stuff, and getting it work, etc.  It's a hobby.  The Linux user just wants it to work and the dabbler like me finds it all a bit too unfamiliar to stay around very long.

I don't "flit" from distro to distro myself. 

I tested several distributions at different times looking for one that was "good enough".  Corel was the first one to stick around for a while (then Microsoft persuaded Corel to leave the Linux market).  Mandrake carried on for some time then OpenSuse for several years.  Each was usable and kept me dabbling at it more and more but didn't cross the threshold. 

I tested various bootable CDs but didn't do any installs with them until DVD playing got me to test Vector and Mint just recently.  Vector was nearly good enough and I would have left it on the laptop but Mint was "Good Enough"  to replace OpenSuse on my desktop and Vector on the laptop.  Barring some major break through I think that they will stay installed with Mint for quite some time as OpenSuse did before Mint.

I don't think it would be a huge problem if people were moving around from one distro to another if those distros contained basically the same core packages but when you've got distros using different version of things like GNOME or KDE or even different kernels, that seems to create substantial problems in terms of developing and deploying applications that will work reliably across distros.

Every time you patch Windows you create the same problems.  The only thing is that Microsoft is able to blame the software maker at all times and get away with it.  As an example (though old) a patch to IE was incompatible with my HD controller and for some reason that blocked all software on my system from accessing the Internet though I could connect - just not do anything.

Consider the problems people have had getting SFC (all versions) to play on XP and Vista.  Microsoft isn't exactly seamless either.  Will Vista Basic actually run all Vista programs? 

I am not sure we can totally fault the users when the developers of these distros haven't sat down and agreed to work within a common framework so that they aren't competing amongst themselves, but more so against Microsoft directly.

The Linux Standard Base and other work by the Linux Foundation is changing that.  Ubuntu by being as good as it is has others deriving from it and those try to maintain the compatibility to it (and thence to Debian) to help compatibility.  That is working towards being a defacto standard for those not already big enough to be an independent "standard" (like Redhat/Fedora for example).

[Lepton]

As to the Ubuntu GRASS GIS packages, I already tried that.  That's the first place I went as I know GRASS as GRASS and not as yet another mere package in a sea of packages.  I added the repositories, apt-get install, etc.  It did not work when launching from terminal.  If I use the 6.0.2 version that is available in standard Ubuntu reps, it's fine, but from that other source, it doesn't work. 

And this is precisely what I mean about linux, that GRASS GIS site has links to binaries for 6, yes SIX, different linux distros and ONE for Windows.  Why does it take 6 different versions to cover all the Linux bases?  That's pretty ridiculous.  And most of those distro-specific packages are maintained by users, USERS, not by the guys producing the application.  I think GRASS is great.  It's basically a $4,000 program for free, but the fact that there are six different sets of precompiled binaries for Linux is silly to me.  If they were dealing with a more unified framework, I am sure that 6 versions would not be needed.  Are there 6 different versions of GNOME or KDE in each of these distros?  I sure hope not.

It actually has NO link for windows.  It has a Unix/Linux version that is supposed to work under Cygwin on Windows.

Nemesis, please don't tell me what you think you know about GRASS.  I've been running it off and on on Linux since Red Hat 7. And I have had to compile it from sources and I may have to compile it from sources in the future.  I have a version of it for Windows right now running natively, not through Cygwin.  On Vista, no less.  Jeez, give someone a web browser, half-a-second, and an opinion, and you create an authority on a subject.



That's GRASS on Windows VISTA native.

[Javora]

Lets look at the major (in market share) versions in North America of Linux that I recall.

First there was Slackware.  A very early distribution and still around but aimed at the truly knowledgable. 

Redhat the first commercial Linux to be really successful.  Still around after years and still among the leaders of the pack.  Its been in the black for years.  Apparently they are going to begin marketing preinstalled Redhat to businesses on desktops.  HP is marketing them  on the Desktop in Australia now.

Suse.  Now owned by Novell but originally a German distribution (and I believe derived from Slackware.  Currently being pushed by ... Microsoft of all companies. 

Ubuntu.  The only recent one (Oct 2004).  Unlike the others they are targetting the end users desktop and due to popular demand are being marketed that way by Dell.

Do minor new brands pop up and gain a following?   Definitely, but unless they have something new they stay on the fringes.  There are some that have tried for the Big Time but didn't make it Corel (now Xandros - Debian derived), Lindows (now Linspire and now Ubuntu derived), Simply Mepis (now Ubuntu derived). 

There are also those that have big followings in other areas of the world, Mandriva for example (formerly Mandrake and Connectiva) is popular in Europe and South America in spite of almost being destroyed by "professional management" brought in by venture capitalists.

There are also those that have a large amount of influence but I wouldn't really say market share.  The King of those is Debian.  Its influence is shown by how many distributions are derived either from it or from a derivative of it (Debian to Ubuntu to Linspire/Mepis/Mint etc as an example)

Linux Mint does not make the list as it is NOT one of the major versions.  I only found out about it from reading an English Linux magazine.  I recommend it not for "cool or hip" but because from my viewpoint for many people it has reached the point of being "Good Enough".  One way for me to tell that is because it finally allowed me to change from primarily Windows (2000Pro) but using Linux as well to the reverse.  Outside of various things where you may be experiencing a vendor lock in it is good enough for the average (non gaming) user.  Gaming is the primary reason my other machine still has Windows on it.

Since Slackware, Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, and Mandriva don't usually have versions of their OS released every month that leaves the "fringe" Linux OS's that I was referring to.  Remember I stated "That's most of the answer", referring to the point about the incompatibility.  If the major Linux distro's are putting out different versions of the distro out every month (to my knowledge they are not) then IMHO it is just further proof that the Linux community is just shooting themselves in the foot.  I'm not going to respond to the rest of this because it has nothing to do with the point that Maxillius and I were making.  All the Linux distros need to be on the same page to grow market share and have a chance at gaming companies make games that run on Linux out of the box.  No gaming company is going to make a game for a bunch of different Linux distro's.  It's that simple.

[Commander Maxillius]

Precisely, and Mac users should want Linux to gain popularity because it is far easier to port a game from Mac to Linux than it is from Windows.  And if it can be easily ported, why wouldn't the reverse be true?  Game companies would write for Linux and include instructions on how to get the game to run on Mac, or even an autodetect on the same disk.

But none of that matters while there are as many distros as PC manufacturers.  Guys, the 1980s wants its computer market back.


EDIT: Nearly forgot what I came for:  GAME NEWS!

I installed Wine and it seems DirectX 8 works well enough to allow Orion Pirates to load, but the show turns to black and white and hangs when you start a skirmish.  Better results than I got with DirectX 7 (original and EAW), which wouldn't install at all.  Gonna try SFC3 and see if DirectX 9 works better.


EDIT 2: No joy.  SFC3's installer can't get past the key entry window.  "Could not open string file" is the error message, then it tells me I aborted the CD key entry process then closes.  So close!  It *has* to work!!!!