[KStrawn]

I'm sorry that I thought Ubuntu paled to Mint in hardware recognition. It DID recognize my Linksys WMP600N as well; it was my old WUSB54GSC that it failed to take. I figured it was the old external adapter's fault, and not Ubuntu's. And it was definitely a piece of Pancake to get my ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO configured. All I had to do for it was click on an "Enable Restricted Drivers" popup. There was really no difference between Mint and Ubuntu. I now am in the majority!

Here is a screenshot to prove it:

[waldojim]

I am glad to see that you are willing to look into the distro upon which Mint was based on. Ubuntu has a very clean appearance. It also runs very lean. I do not like the idea that everything extra has to be downloaded... but that was when I was using my aircard for dsl service (about 140~200k/sec transfers HURT on a 400M+ download!) That doesn't bother me as much these days, but I would like to see more included.

anyhow - glad to see you opened up to other flavors

[quackadilly]

I loaded Ubuntu on my laptop about a month ago and honestly did not like it.

Yes, it was easy to install. Yes, the interface was very clean. I believe it did recognize all of my hardware...not too sure though.


Maybe I'll try it again when I get some free time to mess around with it.

[waldojim]

quackadilly, on 23 September 2009 - 11:33 AM, said:

I loaded Ubuntu on my laptop about a month ago and honestly did not like it.

Yes, it was easy to install. Yes, the interface was very clean. I believe it did recognize all of my hardware...not too sure though.


Maybe I'll try it again when I get some free time to mess around with it.

you mind if I be nosy as to what you didn't like?

I have had various things I did - and did not like about various distros, and have settled on a few that I generally do like... ubutnu is OK, Mint was (WAS) very good... SuSE use to be the BOMB! I loved SuSE from 8.2 through 10.0. I didn't like the nvidia install procedure (due to a very strange kernel setup) and I LOATHED DVDCSS; but other things were SO much nicer there - gaming, wine support, cedega, etc. They just seemed to like suse better. But everyone has their reasoning for not liking things... I am just curious if it was an interface thing, or underlying OS thing...

[KStrawn]

waldojim, on 23 September 2009 - 11:59 AM, said:

quackadilly, on 23 September 2009 - 11:33 AM, said:

I loaded Ubuntu on my laptop about a month ago and honestly did not like it.

Yes, it was easy to install. Yes, the interface was very clean. I believe it did recognize all of my hardware...not too sure though.


Maybe I'll try it again when I get some free time to mess around with it.

you mind if I be nosy as to what you didn't like?

I have had various things I did - and did not like about various distros, and have settled on a few that I generally do like... ubutnu is OK, Mint was (WAS) very good... SuSE use to be the BOMB! I loved SuSE from 8.2 through 10.0. I didn't like the nvidia install procedure (due to a very strange kernel setup) and I LOATHED DVDCSS; but other things were SO much nicer there - gaming, wine support, cedega, etc. They just seemed to like suse better. But everyone has their reasoning for not liking things... I am just curious if it was an interface thing, or underlying OS thing...

Is SUSE a paid distro or what? If it sets me back any money, I'm sticking with Ubuntu. Needless to say, if any open variants exist, it's worth the shot. However, how difficult is it to create a custom distribution? That would be the best way to go, considering the fact that installing KDE on top of a compiled Linux kernel may not be a bad way to go, along with the required kernel modules for your hardware. Just learn C++, and I'd be able to do that.

[waldojim]

KStrawn, on 23 September 2009 - 03:26 PM, said:

waldojim, on 23 September 2009 - 11:59 AM, said:

quackadilly, on 23 September 2009 - 11:33 AM, said:

I loaded Ubuntu on my laptop about a month ago and honestly did not like it.

Yes, it was easy to install. Yes, the interface was very clean. I believe it did recognize all of my hardware...not too sure though.


Maybe I'll try it again when I get some free time to mess around with it.

you mind if I be nosy as to what you didn't like?

I have had various things I did - and did not like about various distros, and have settled on a few that I generally do like... ubutnu is OK, Mint was (WAS) very good... SuSE use to be the BOMB! I loved SuSE from 8.2 through 10.0. I didn't like the nvidia install procedure (due to a very strange kernel setup) and I LOATHED DVDCSS; but other things were SO much nicer there - gaming, wine support, cedega, etc. They just seemed to like suse better. But everyone has their reasoning for not liking things... I am just curious if it was an interface thing, or underlying OS thing...

Is SUSE a paid distro or what? If it sets me back any money, I'm sticking with Ubuntu. Needless to say, if any open variants exist, it's worth the shot. However, how difficult is it to create a custom distribution? That would be the best way to go, considering the fact that installing KDE on top of a compiled Linux kernel may not be a bad way to go, along with the required kernel modules for your hardware. Just learn C++, and I'd be able to do that.

SuSE was always a odd distro in that they did have a free variant (and still do) but they centered around a paid for "Enterprise" edition. To be honest, back when my internet choices were dial-up or nothing... I chose to buy SuSE off the shelf. I was never disappointed. I bought 7.2 Pro, 8.2 Personal and 9.0 Pro - The pro package was nearly 10GB of apps! everything from 3d work, to C++ IDE development. It worked great for someone with limited internet access. Though not so great for someone with limited hard drive space!

Today you can find it at opensuse.org
If you are looking to roll your own Flavor for home use (not as a distro per say) then check out Gentoo; Gentoo allows you to build and compile your distro as needed for your rig. Don't want OSS support? Don't build it. Don't need 100+ scsi drivers you never use? Don't build them. You get the idea. I did this once for my AMD Athlon XP 1600+... DANG it was fast. I didn't have any of the crap running anymore, and the kernel was streamlined for that machine. Add in the GCC optimizations, and you can get one lean rig.

[KStrawn]

waldojim, on 23 September 2009 - 03:36 PM, said:

KStrawn, on 23 September 2009 - 03:26 PM, said:

waldojim, on 23 September 2009 - 11:59 AM, said:

quackadilly, on 23 September 2009 - 11:33 AM, said:

I loaded Ubuntu on my laptop about a month ago and honestly did not like it.

Yes, it was easy to install. Yes, the interface was very clean. I believe it did recognize all of my hardware...not too sure though.


Maybe I'll try it again when I get some free time to mess around with it.

you mind if I be nosy as to what you didn't like?

I have had various things I did - and did not like about various distros, and have settled on a few that I generally do like... ubutnu is OK, Mint was (WAS) very good... SuSE use to be the BOMB! I loved SuSE from 8.2 through 10.0. I didn't like the nvidia install procedure (due to a very strange kernel setup) and I LOATHED DVDCSS; but other things were SO much nicer there - gaming, wine support, cedega, etc. They just seemed to like suse better. But everyone has their reasoning for not liking things... I am just curious if it was an interface thing, or underlying OS thing...

Is SUSE a paid distro or what? If it sets me back any money, I'm sticking with Ubuntu. Needless to say, if any open variants exist, it's worth the shot. However, how difficult is it to create a custom distribution? That would be the best way to go, considering the fact that installing KDE on top of a compiled Linux kernel may not be a bad way to go, along with the required kernel modules for your hardware. Just learn C++, and I'd be able to do that.

SuSE was always a odd distro in that they did have a free variant (and still do) but they centered around a paid for "Enterprise" edition. To be honest, back when my internet choices were dial-up or nothing... I chose to buy SuSE off the shelf. I was never disappointed. I bought 7.2 Pro, 8.2 Personal and 9.0 Pro - The pro package was nearly 10GB of apps! everything from 3d work, to C++ IDE development. It worked great for someone with limited internet access. Though not so great for someone with limited hard drive space!

Today you can find it at opensuse.org
If you are looking to roll your own Flavor for home use (not as a distro per say) then check out Gentoo; Gentoo allows you to build and compile your distro as needed for your rig. Don't want OSS support? Don't build it. Don't need 100+ scsi drivers you never use? Don't build them. You get the idea. I did this once for my AMD Athlon XP 1600+... DANG it was fast. I didn't have any of the crap running anymore, and the kernel was streamlined for that machine. Add in the GCC optimizations, and you can get one lean rig.

Where can Gentoo be downloaded?

Send me a link, please.

[waldojim]

download from http://www.gentoo.or...in/en/where.xml
install guide here: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/
The install guide is VERY detailed, and you will learn a lot about Linux during the install. As it stands - please understand this is not for the faint hearted. It takes time (and a lot of it) and patience. Not saying you don't have it, only that my first build took almost 2 weeks to finish. Though I was using an older version that made you build everything from scratch (including gcc!)... so it may be quicker now.

[KStrawn]

waldojim, on 23 September 2009 - 10:52 PM, said:

download from http://www.gentoo.or...in/en/where.xml
install guide here: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/
The install guide is VERY detailed, and you will learn a lot about Linux during the install. As it stands - please understand this is not for the faint hearted. It takes time (and a lot of it) and patience. Not saying you don't have it, only that my first build took almost 2 weeks to finish. Though I was using an older version that made you build everything from scratch (including gcc!)... so it may be quicker now.

How much time does it take to build a custom Linux distro from source and the kernel? Compiling the kernel from Ubuntu onto a USB drive is what I am doing right now. How long does it take to build on top of a pure kernel?

[waldojim]

KStrawn, on 24 September 2009 - 05:40 PM, said:

waldojim, on 23 September 2009 - 10:52 PM, said:

download from http://www.gentoo.or...in/en/where.xml
install guide here: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/
The install guide is VERY detailed, and you will learn a lot about Linux during the install. As it stands - please understand this is not for the faint hearted. It takes time (and a lot of it) and patience. Not saying you don't have it, only that my first build took almost 2 weeks to finish. Though I was using an older version that made you build everything from scratch (including gcc!)... so it may be quicker now.

How much time does it take to build a custom Linux distro from source and the kernel? Compiling the kernel from Ubuntu onto a USB drive is what I am doing right now. How long does it take to build on top of a pure kernel?

Like I said before, it will depend on how much stuff you build, and how fast your machine is. It took an AMD Athlon-XP 1600+ (at 1.8Ghz) a week to build a fully functional Gentoo 1.4rc distro (X, KDE, etc) with more recent editions, I would figure closer to a week and half considering the software has grown in size and complexity. I would guess no less than 3 days on a dual core machine... but this is a guess, as I have not tried that yet.

[KStrawn]

What about a bare kernel from Kernel.org? How difficult is THAT to compile on top of? If you, in theory compiled such a kernel (current version:2.6.31.1) on a separate partition and got a copy of the GNOME source code and compiled it on top of the kernel, and compiled GNOME Shell within GNOME on that kernel, it could work.

[waldojim]

KStrawn, on 25 September 2009 - 04:41 PM, said:

What about a bare kernel from Kernel.org? How difficult is THAT to compile on top of? If you, in theory compiled such a kernel (current version:2.6.31.1) on a separate partition and got a copy of the GNOME source code and compiled it on top of the kernel, and compiled GNOME Shell within GNOME on that kernel, it could work.

well, that is where Gentoo comes into play - it helps by grabbing the dependencies you need for your target system. EX. You decide you want to build gnome, You also need the x-server, and other libraries to back it up. You should also have a sound system in place (OSS, Alsa, Pulse Audio, etc) Gentoo makes that a bit easier to pull off.

[KStrawn]

waldojim, on 25 September 2009 - 05:40 PM, said:

KStrawn, on 25 September 2009 - 04:41 PM, said:

What about a bare kernel from Kernel.org? How difficult is THAT to compile on top of? If you, in theory compiled such a kernel (current version:2.6.31.1) on a separate partition and got a copy of the GNOME source code and compiled it on top of the kernel, and compiled GNOME Shell within GNOME on that kernel, it could work.

well, that is where Gentoo comes into play - it helps by grabbing the dependencies you need for your target system. EX. You decide you want to build gnome, You also need the x-server, and other libraries to back it up. You should also have a sound system in place (OSS, Alsa, Pulse Audio, etc) Gentoo makes that a bit easier to pull off.

I now have Gentoo and got it right after the post asking where to download it, thanks to a Google Search. However, how do I actually get it installed on a partition and get the .ebuild modules compiled? Or do I actually compile it on the CD? I don't know. And I certainly don't know where the EBuilder is on the disk, since I have to do everything in the shell.

[waldojim]

KStrawn, on 25 September 2009 - 06:16 PM, said:

waldojim, on 25 September 2009 - 05:40 PM, said:

KStrawn, on 25 September 2009 - 04:41 PM, said:

What about a bare kernel from Kernel.org? How difficult is THAT to compile on top of? If you, in theory compiled such a kernel (current version:2.6.31.1) on a separate partition and got a copy of the GNOME source code and compiled it on top of the kernel, and compiled GNOME Shell within GNOME on that kernel, it could work.

well, that is where Gentoo comes into play - it helps by grabbing the dependencies you need for your target system. EX. You decide you want to build gnome, You also need the x-server, and other libraries to back it up. You should also have a sound system in place (OSS, Alsa, Pulse Audio, etc) Gentoo makes that a bit easier to pull off.

I now have Gentoo and got it right after the post asking where to download it, thanks to a Google Search. However, how do I actually get it installed on a partition and get the .ebuild modules compiled? Or do I actually compile it on the CD? I don't know. And I certainly don't know where the EBuilder is on the disk, since I have to do everything in the shell.

the other link I posted is for the guide, or handbook as they call it. I could try to post it all here, but they do have an excellent manual made up already

[KStrawn]

waldojim, on 25 September 2009 - 07:34 PM, said:

KStrawn, on 25 September 2009 - 06:16 PM, said:

waldojim, on 25 September 2009 - 05:40 PM, said:

KStrawn, on 25 September 2009 - 04:41 PM, said:

What about a bare kernel from Kernel.org? How difficult is THAT to compile on top of? If you, in theory compiled such a kernel (current version:2.6.31.1) on a separate partition and got a copy of the GNOME source code and compiled it on top of the kernel, and compiled GNOME Shell within GNOME on that kernel, it could work.

well, that is where Gentoo comes into play - it helps by grabbing the dependencies you need for your target system. EX. You decide you want to build gnome, You also need the x-server, and other libraries to back it up. You should also have a sound system in place (OSS, Alsa, Pulse Audio, etc) Gentoo makes that a bit easier to pull off.

I now have Gentoo and got it right after the post asking where to download it, thanks to a Google Search. However, how do I actually get it installed on a partition and get the .ebuild modules compiled? Or do I actually compile it on the CD? I don't know. And I certainly don't know where the EBuilder is on the disk, since I have to do everything in the shell.

the other link I posted is for the guide, or handbook as they call it. I could try to post it all here, but they do have an excellent manual made up already

I went off topic, so did you. However, I really feel that installing Gentoo was very painstaking, considering that my wireless Linksys WMP600N failed to work in it. Ubuntu works very well for me, and I have to update the screenshots. Here's Ubuntu with GNOME Shell compiled:

http://5yki2q.bay.li.../Activities.png

http://5yki2q.bay.li...pplications.png

http://5yki2q.bay.li...sNoTerminal.png

http://5yki2q.bay.li...lNoTerminal.png

[waldojim]

no offense intended here, but if your wireless card failed to work- you failed to build the kernel correctly. Gentoo uses the latest kernels (the same one other distros use), you have to take the time to figure out which module supports your card and ensure it gets built. That distro is 100% whatever you make of it...

[KStrawn]

waldojim, on 27 September 2009 - 10:12 AM, said:

no offense intended here, but if your wireless card failed to work- you failed to build the kernel correctly. Gentoo uses the latest kernels (the same one other distros use), you have to take the time to figure out which module supports your card and ensure it gets built. That distro is 100% whatever you make of it...

The latest Gentoo Documentation available said the kernel version is 2.6.24, an outdated kernel. Ubuntu's is 2.6.28.15, and Kernel.org's latest is 2.6.31.1. When I ran ifconfig on the Gentoo LiveCD (weekly build), the only network interface that came up is eth0, the wired Internet. I bet you the Linksys WMP600N was a recently added kernel module.

Waldo, Quackadilly, and others, I need to know your votes on my two GNOME polls.

One of them, "GNOME 2.28: Update Ubuntu, Please" asks whether version 2.28 of the GNOME desktop should be integrated into Ubuntu, and the same goes for GNOME 3.0 upon its release in the spring. The GNOME community already is working on the GNOME 2.29 prerelease build, which will become GNOME 3.0 when it's released. http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/

The other, "GNOME Shell Screenshots", asks whether GNOME Shell is useful or not, and provides screenshots to back up my answer (the same ones shown here).
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/

This post has been edited by KStrawn: 27 September 2009 - 11:14 AM

[waldojim]

KStrawn, on 27 September 2009 - 10:49 AM, said:

waldojim, on 27 September 2009 - 10:12 AM, said:

no offense intended here, but if your wireless card failed to work- you failed to build the kernel correctly. Gentoo uses the latest kernels (the same one other distros use), you have to take the time to figure out which module supports your card and ensure it gets built. That distro is 100% whatever you make of it...

The latest Gentoo Documentation available said the kernel version is 2.6.24, an outdated kernel. Ubuntu's is 2.6.28.15, and Kernel.org's latest is 2.6.31.1. When I ran ifconfig on the Gentoo LiveCD (weekly build), the only network interface that came up is eth0, the wired Internet. I bet you the Linksys WMP600N was a recently added kernel module.

Waldo, Quackadilly, and others, I need to know your votes on my two GNOME polls.

One of them, "GNOME 2.28: Update Ubuntu, Please" asks whether version 2.28 of the GNOME desktop should be integrated into Ubuntu, and the same goes for GNOME 3.0 upon its release in the spring. The GNOME community already is working on the GNOME 2.29 prerelease build, which will become GNOME 3.0 when it's released. http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/

The other, "GNOME Shell Screenshots", asks whether GNOME Shell is useful or not, and provides screenshots to back up my answer (the same ones shown here).
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/

That documentation wont be updated for every kernel; And that is not enough to stop one from downloading the latest build!

Download - build, and see what happens.

As far as the gnome shots - I have not tried it yet, so no opinion yet.