Linux is getting out of hand now.

[CaptainCrash]

Ah right... Well, as I said, I did try MP3 playback but that was with Fedora 9 so that page and the support didnt exist, since thats for Fedora 10.

I haven't used any version of Fedora prior to 10, but I'm pretty sure RPM Fusion, or the pre-merge Livna/Freshrpms/Dribble repos could still have been found with a minimal amount of effort.

On another note, Fedora 10 seems very nice indeed - relatively unbloated, but still a decent out-of-the-box experience.

The latest Amarok is pretty poor. I wasn't a fan of the older versions either but the latest one stinks. Try Audacious, Exaile, Banshee.

Another option is Quod Libet, which runs nicely under Gnome and doesn't spit the dummy when presented with a very large music collection.

To be honest the best solution I've found so far is foobar2000/Wine, which works well for the most part, but obviously a native Linux equivalent would be more satisfying.

 

[manic111]

Yes sorry.

Yes I know that you can still use other distros but what we seem to have is going from one extreme to the other.

However, the functions are what the end user requires, so thats really down to what is asked of the O/S I suppose?

No, I also like SuSE and thats not as bloated as many seem to think it is, its also very quick and I do like it.

But have you seen the difference between Ubuntu 8.4 and 9.4 ?

Perhaps you are right. Im argueing over idiotic things, but I have just got into Ubuntu, moving from Gentoo and all of a sudden its getting silly.

At the same time Ubuntu are catering to the absolute novices, those who can just about navigate Windows. They are looking to get your average PC user on board, in order to pull market share away from Windows, as opposed to targeting people like us, who know their way around a machine, and are still in the minority. As such they gain more by including everything, so people won't try it, not be able to find something immediately, and give up.

For people who want something more customised, there are "DIY" distros like Arch or Gentoo, or if you aren't that way inclined go for something like CrunchBang...

And 9.04 is considerably snappier than 8.10, if not 8.04

 

[theheyes]

And 9.04 is considerably snappier than 8.10, if not 8.04

Having installed 8.10 literally fifteen minutes ago, I concur. I keep chewing my underpants for a second thinking its hung. The boot up and log in sequence for 9.04 is much quicker.

Still if it solves my problem all is forgiven!

 

[Bob Wya Jnr]

Just a comment Ubuntu versions are 8.04, 8.10, 9.04 based on the year and month (not that leading zero there for the month!!)

If you want MP3 playback out of the box then go for Linux Mint (a distro derived from Ubuntu) - but it's hardly hard to sort this out!!

The latest versions of Ubuntu are not really designed for systems with less than 1Gb RAM. They are just matching the specification of Windows XP... Oh surprise, surprise most hardware will run it fine because it comes with Windows XP pre-installed...

You want a decent media player than that is a general GNU failing and can't be laid at the door of Canonical... I would recommend uninstalling Amarok and use Mplayer / SMplayer instead.

Until I tried Ubuntu 8.04 I didn't think I could migrate away from using Windows most of the time... Now with Wine maturing, etc. I am counting down the days!! (Plus sorting out an Nvidia GPU...)

Bob

 

[FatRakoon]

The MP3 issue "out of the box" was only for Fedora 9 ( to which I have already posted a while back that I can cure, but the defaults are NOT free ) and for 9.04 Ubuntu which is also sorted now.

I have found that Linux MiNT is fine, just the same as ubuntu is with MP3 playback ( once I had updated it anyway and got the MP3 codecs )

Office apps
Ok, Gnome Office, Koffice, OpenOffice, as well as gedit, kedit, kwrite etc are all much bigger than they were on previous versions of ubuntu and yet they are no better and in some cases, as with amarok, they are also getting silly in that they are losing their appeal.

Im tryign to download Debian now. Im opting for the single DVD rather than the full 5 DVD Set, but the last time I tried Debian, it failed miserably to install, both for myself and my linux hugging friend too!

 

[LabR@t]

mint in his sig

 

[CaptainCrash]

the last time I tried Debian, it failed miserably to install

I know the feeling. Last time I tried making spaghetti carbonara, it failed miserably to cook.

 

[FatRakoon]

Ok, well, I have taken the plunge then.

I have downloaded DVD 1 ( 5 DVDs???? FFS! ) of Debian 5.1

I just went to install it, and I decided as I am very much a debian virgin ( Like I said, Ubuntu is the only version of Debian I took to ( Although What about Corel and Storm years ago? ) ) and anyway, I have opted for the automatic install...

Good news 1
It saw my HD as 160GB instead of 120GB
Only a few Linux distros see the full 160GB and SuSE is one, but Debian sees it too!
NO Windows versions sees it as 160GB and the BIOS is the latest and fully up to date and that sees it as 160GB
So, thats Good news 1

Good News 2
Its fairly quick. Too early to tell of course, its looking fairly much like any other gnome Desktop at this time, but it has some nice themes so I went with the crux one I seem to adore.

Bad News 1
My smegging Wireless wont play nicely. This however was the very same with all othersexcept SuSE and I just connect it with the Ethernet and see if I cant get it automagically to find some drivers for it. Ubuntu 8 was great this way but 9 not so much... Took yonks of twiddling.

Anyway, I will give it a play for a while now, se about chucking some stuff onto to it to see what happens that any better / worse than any other and I will get back.

mint in his sig

No, thats MiNT on the Atari Falcon.

Although yes, I also have MiNT 5.3 too!
I currently have MiNT 5.3 & Sabayon 3.6 On Desktops

And its my Laptop that I usually have Ubuntu on ( Now Debian )

 

[JonJ678]

*cough* you only need cd 1
The rest are the software you have available through aptitude anyway, the DVDs are only amazing if your computer is offline or you reinstall Debian very often

Might be in time to save you downloading everything
The manual install is more fun, and gives you many more options. I'm particularly fond of the minimal install that leaves you with a command line and access to the internet, but nothing else

 

[FatRakoon]

LOL, no worries. I gathered that. I have only got DVD 1 and will only have DVD 1, but thanks.... I have done that before.

Getting entire sets of disks only to find out things like one disk is gnome, another xfce, a thirda for KDE and so on, then of course a text based one of course and then a 32 and 64 Bit version of each etc etc etc... Doen it before, so...

Anyway, small update

MP3 playback straight away with rhythmbox, so thast a plus.

not shutting down yet and it requires me to hold the power button all teh time. Small update might cure it but I still have not got Wireless working on it yet... I have just connected it with ethernet and its waiting for me to play.

2 Browsers... Epiphany and Iceweasel not used them before so I will have a play.

Mouse still doing the same thing... I cannot use the glide point at all and as soon as I do, the mouse button wont work, the PC suddenly goes slow and it wont respond to anything, althougfh the mouse does jitter about. This also requires a power off, but every other distro does this also.

Ok, not sent this... Just been toying about and there are a number of updates coming now...

Im going to bed in 5 minutes Im wrecked.

 

[FirebarUK]

Have you installed the synaptics driver? 'apt-get install synaptics'

Also, a google suggests the trackpad should work flawlessly in Ubuntu 8.04

 

[FatRakoon]

I did apt-get install synaptics but was informed ( By the system ) that it was being replaced by tpconfig and so I installed that instead.
ow, on saying this
The trackpad does indeed work, however, I cannot hack using one and so I often use a mouse.

Now, on saying this, the pad works fine until you update the ATI driver, then it crashes the PC as soon as you try to move the mouse or press a button.

9.4 has not done that and neither had Debian, however Debian wont update any hardware, so it wouldnt.

 

[FatRakoon]

Ok, I will close this one off, but offer you an update.

I have now moved to DEBIAN.

I have had and am still havign a few niggles, but its a very nice system, very close to ubuntu ( in fact Im trying to work out what difference there is apart from the installed softwrae and some hardware issues there actually is, but I am really liking Debian even with its niggles more than ubuntu.

 

[BigglesPiP]

Ok, I will close this one off, but offer you an update.

I have now moved to DEBIAN.

I have had and am still havign a few niggles, but its a very nice system, very close to ubuntu ( in fact Im trying to work out what difference there is apart from the installed softwrae and some hardware issues there actually is, but I am really liking Debian even with its niggles more than ubuntu.

Debian is the oldest distro.

It is made of 100% free software, hence iceweasel.

Ubuntu is a nonfree, easy to use fork of debian.

 

[FatRakoon]

Im not going to go silly here, but I downloaded both debian and ubuntu ( And a few trillion variations of ubuntu ) and I did not pay for any of them.

I also see that the same software is available on both Debian and ubuntu.

You mention IceWeasel, and thats fine, I have to admit to not seeing this is ubuntu, nor epiphany come to mention it, but apart from those, there are a number of other options that are on the disk ready to use.

Again what makes Debian free and ubuntu NON-Free when they have the same software on the disk.

Also what makes Ubuntu easy to use?

The only different that I have seen so far, is that Ubuntu sets up my hardware properly for me, while in Debian, I have had to manually install the drivers and manually set things up.

Everything else seems to be the same?

( Please dont take this as a dig, its a genuine question )

 

[FirebarUK]

Again what makes Debian free and ubuntu NON-Free when they have the same software on the disk.

They don't. Hence IceWeasel and the like.

Although Debian believes in free software, there are cases where people want or need to put non-free software on their machine. Whenever possible Debian will support this. There are even a growing number of packages whose sole job is to install non-free software into a Debian system.

http://www.debian.org/social_contract

However, Debian does have non-free repositories for proprietry software (like nVidia/ATI driver packages etc.)

Also what makes Ubuntu easy to use?

It makes it easier to setup hardware (as you mention), download and install codecs and doesn't come with many packages installed by default - so you then add to it through the repositories.

It's all quite relative though. Previously, distro's like SuSE, Fedora, Mepis, Mandriva didn't have an easy way (at least for those not used to the commandline) to install things like codecs and graphics drivers. This has all changed but back when this was the case Ubuntu stood out in this regard.

Im not going to go silly here, but I downloaded both debian and ubuntu ( And a few trillion variations of ubuntu ) and I did not pay for any of them.

There's Free and 'Free'. True software freedom is very different to being able to download someone's code free of charge: http://www.debian.org/intro/free

 

[yashiro]

From an end user perspective the main difference is Debian is poor at setting up Wireless on the initial install.

As well as the Free mantra mentioned above there is usually a resistance in Debian of making things easier for normal folk.

This is why people recommend Ubuntu and Ubuntu has become more popular with people who do not want to learn the guts of Linux. Underneath they're practically identical but the minor additions to Ubuntu make it easier for people with no Linux knowledge to switch.

 

[Bob Wya Jnr]

Is it just me or has their been a big jump in/ push for the quality of support for multimedia in GNU/ Linux in general over the past 2 years? I remember trying to sort out a Mandriva install at work for a guy I had built a PC for - that was only back in 2006... It was such a headache!! All he wants to do is watch a few You Tube videos and play back ripped CD's/CD's... Not really that much to ask!!

So anyways I reckon when he gets a new (faster) boot HD soon I will install Sabayon or Linux-Mint. I guess feeling I feel comfortable that these OS's will meet all his requirements for this guy right out of the box... He was quite happy using the GNU Desktop in Mandriva (which was wasn't even that good looking at the time) and it was only my ineptitude at sorting out Flash playback, etc. that stopped him switching over from Windows XP Professional!!

I think in general my comment was meant(!!) to be along the lines of their are loads of folks out there that could actually adopt and learn to love GNU/Linux as a desktop OS right now!! (My parents are next!!)

Bob

 

[FatRakoon]

This is my thoughts.

I have been using Linux in various flavours since Mandrake 5

I have not known the real guts of its workings, and I have been very lucky in that I have known enough to not need to know... For example, my first Linux PC was an M590 that has SIS6326 Onboard. I soon learned that rather than get the graphics working, that I would have been better off with Matrox Graphics... I then learned that Linux would still see the SIS even though I had a Matrox and so I bought a new Mobo that had no onboard... Problem solved.

Sure, I still had to configure X but it was fairly easy by this time.

Now, I have kind of stuck with Mandrake ( until Mandriva ) and I have tried a number of various distros over the years and more recently went with ubuntu.

Previously, I have a had a love for both RPM and KDE but ubuntu was the one thign that has made me adopt gnome more, and of course deb too.

Now, in all teh years I have used Mandrake, I have never needed to go too deep into the working of it because it has all teh tools I need, and yet people have slagged me off about it.

It has become the same now with ubuntu. Too many people are slagging ubuntu users off saying that you must go with debian etc.

But in truth, there is not really THAT much difference at all between debian and ubuntu

Perhaps ubuntu has been altered by the professiaonals to have better support for hardware and it has a brown look rather than debians gray/blue look but other than that, there is no difference at all. or at least there isnt enough difference to justify so many people knocking ubuntu users surely?

Now, I know a few thigns about linux. Sure, setting up Wireless has been hell for me, and Im currently kind of lost with Debian not being able to shut my laptop down, but setting up the most stupid non compatible graphics card then im your man, and anyway these 2 problems have never happened with any other distro and only with debian.

I almost lost it with linux an of all the distros that kept me from dumping it altogether was sabayon on my desktop and suse on my laptop, and thats because getting the hardware setup was painless.

 

[BigglesPiP]

Im not going to go silly here, but I downloaded both debian and ubuntu ( And a few trillion variations of ubuntu ) and I did not pay for any of them.

I also see that the same software is available on both Debian and ubuntu.

You mention IceWeasel, and thats fine, I have to admit to not seeing this is ubuntu, nor epiphany come to mention it, but apart from those, there are a number of other options that are on the disk ready to use.

Again what makes Debian free and ubuntu NON-Free when they have the same software on the disk.

Also what makes Ubuntu easy to use?

The only different that I have seen so far, is that Ubuntu sets up my hardware properly for me, while in Debian, I have had to manually install they drivers and manually set things up.

Everything else seems to be the same?

( Please dont take this as a dig, its a genuine question )

Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.

Debian only contains packages that are 100% open source, 100% free (money) and contain no copyrighted brands etc. Which is why they don't have Firefox, they use Iceweasel instead.

Canonical take debian, add non free (non open source) packages, put firefox on instead of Iceweasel, run their own vastly different repos, pack a lot of different software, make vast changes to the default configuration, and call it Ubuntu.

If your wireless driver is not open source, it will be insytalled from the nonfree repos by Ubuntu, but debian will not contain anything to support it.