The Un-Official Proxomitron Forum

Hi all,

I'm planning on doing an install of Linux (for dual booting - it'll probably be my primary os) in the not-too-distant future , and I want to install it to a new hard drive instead of re-partitioning my existing one. Looks like I have space in the bay and cabling ready to plug into a second hd. I thought I'd ask what hd brands you like.

I'm considering a Seagate, maybe 120 to 160 gb, ata. They seem to have a good reputation, though they're a little more expensive. I've seen some good prices on Maxtor, but I've also heard some bad things about them ... as in sub-standard quality and life-expectancy in some people's experience. Doesn't seem wise to skimp on hardware.

TIA for your comments!

I have two Maxtor's in my computer now. Ones a 120GB which I boot from and the other is a 250GB which I use for storage. The 120 is over a year old now and I haven't had any trouble with it at all. The 250 is about 3 or 4 months old (and about half full ) and working fine. I also have a 250GB Western Digital in my Xbox which is about 3 months old. The 120GB is a serial ata and the others are IDE. I've never used any Seagate drives so I couldn't tell you about those, but I hear their good. I would definately say go for the serial ata, even though they're a little more money, they're about 50% faster than IDE drives.

I think all the major players are about equal; you will find people liking and having problems with each. Seagate drives are known to be quiet and reliable as far as I know.

Try Ubuntu linux out it is very good and free;
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/download/

Thanks

I'm not sure whether Maxtor got a bad reputation years ago, and haven't been able to shake it, or what. A lot of people seem to have had very good luck with them. On the other hand, Seagate seems to really stand behind their drives with a good warranty. Like you say, besafe, I guess the well-known names are probably all in the same league -- as long as you avoid "acme super drive-o-matic" special deals

I was planning on going ata/100 or 133 as my drive now is ata (Samsung sp1203n 120GB ata/133), and I thought you had to match them as far as IDE or sata went (barring doing some extra wiring or whatever, which I don't want to do -- the cables are just sitting there waiting for an extra drive). I've noticed that there are easy-looking ata/sata adapters available, though. Not sure if I want to go that route, in order to get the extra speed, or keep it simple.

I'll have to take another look at Ubuntu; I tried it earlier (live cd). I like Knoppix 3.8.2 a lot (3.9 didn't work too well for me -- bad freezes and lock-ups; still waiting to see what 4.0 is like). I wanted to give SuSE a try, but I can't seem to burn the 1.5GB live dvd .iso to dvd. I'm leaning towards Debian Sarge because of my positive experience with Knoppix; they say installing Debian isn't the ordeal it used to be.

You actually don't have to match sata with sata or ide with ide. My 120 is an sata and my 250 is ide. But I know on the dell bios, you can't boot from the ide if an sata is installed unless you have some boot menu (like you'll have) so it wont matter.

Ubuntu is Debian based and is the only linux version that I've installled that actually finds all my hardware properly the fist time and is also the only one that also finds my monitors resolution correctly. It is very well done and you can try a live cd, burn ISO's or order cd's that they will ship to you at no charge.

Ubuntu is good, and I've been considering it -- though I like Knoppix better. Speaking strictly of live-cds, of which I've only tried about 7, Knoppix 3.8.2 also seems very good at detecting hardware, though 3.8.1 had trouble with sound. I was also interested in Kubuntu (Ubuntu with KDE), but of the two live versions I tried, one wouldn't finish booting, and the other didn't detect my usb drive, so it seems installing Ubuntu and then getting the KDE desktop would be better in my case. I understand the Ubuntu install is relatively easy, and allows for some customisation.

Debian may still be a bit much for a newbie such as myself to install. But, after using Knoppix and reading that Knoppix, installed, is Debian (except not, due to difficulties upgrading and maintaining), I'm really tempted to try Debian Sarge. Or even do a hd install of Knoppix . (Where's the emoticon for "stubborn as a mule"???) :p

I've currently got Ubuntu installed but haven't tried the live cd. I have also installed knoppix on my hdd a while back. I'm always trying out different versions of linux to see if some day I may hit one I actually like better than XP. Libranet is also very good. None of them are anywhere as good as XP though and I always find myself going back to XP. Maybe some day.

All;

As has been noted, Debian is (or at least, was) considered the "guru's linux", meaning that it required an esoteric knowledge of one's hardware to make it install and work. As time goes on of course, it's getting better at the 'user friendly' component. But Knoppix and Ubuntu are derivatives that are meant to bridge that gap more quickly, with the obvious intent of making inroads into the Windows world. After all, we all use Windows primarily because it works as we expect, even if not quite as we'd like.

That said, besafe, can you elaborate please on your statememt:

Quote:None of them are anywhere as good as XP though

Just what is it that you feel is not yet good enough in any version of linux (that you've tried) that brings you back to Windows (and not coincidentally, bolstering my point above)?


Oddysey

Oddysey Wrote:That said, besafe, can you elaborate please on your statememt:

Quote:None of them are anywhere as good as XP though

Just what is it that you feel is not yet good enough in any version of linux (that you've tried) that brings you back to Windows (and not coincidentally, bolstering my point above)?


Oddysey

Sure.
I am not a coder and do not work in the computer field. I do like playing around with computers and software. I do know that there are over 10 million lines of code in XP and have no idea how many there are in the average Linux distro.
It is very difficult not to bolster your point that XP works as we expect because that is the most likeable aspect of the OS. The fact that XP works as we expect with a vast array of software and hardware and does so so consistently is nearly impossible to match by any Linux distro. It also is easier to learn the ins and outs of the OS and to get yourself out of trouble than Linux distros are for an average user like myself. The lack of software and the more difficult task of installing and using software and hardware with Linux are a pain in the neck.
I am not a coder but the fact that XP finds and installs hardware consistently better than Linux leads me to believe that XP is simply better or more thoroughly coded than Linux. Any linux distro that can't get my monitor right and doesn't give me the options to change the resolutions properly(several distros) the first time, gets a failing grade from me and gets removed from my system. Even win98 can do this!
I am a regular user; so ease of use is paramount and Linux isn't there yet. I have no DOS training so I don't particularly care to use the terminal that often. I also like to just be able to install a program and start using it; I don't want to take a week to get it installed or not installed at all.
Linux does seem pretty stable but so is XP.
I use my teenagers as test subjects often. They rate programs by how easy they are for them to do what they want. Needless to say when I install linux on their pc's it does not take long before they never boot into it again.
It can be called hand holding or whatever what one wants to call it; but untill linux becomes even more user friendly or dumbed down as some say and will work as expected more often it simply is not as good to me.
Untill then I will continue to use the rock solid, user friendly XP and occasinally boot into linux and play around.

besafe;

Quote:

Oddysey Wrote:That said, besafe, can you elaborate please on your statememt:

Quote:None of them are anywhere as good as XP though

Just what is it that you feel is not yet good enough in any version of linux (that you've tried) that brings you back to Windows (and not coincidentally, bolstering my point above)?

Oddysey

Sure.
I am not a coder and do not work in the computer field. I do like playing around with computers and software. I do know that there are over 10 million lines of code in XP and have no idea how many there are in the average Linux distro.
It is very difficult not to bolster your point that XP works as we expect because that is the most likeable aspect of the OS. The fact that XP works as we expect with a vast array of software and hardware and does so so consistently is nearly impossible to match by any Linux distro. It also is easier to learn the ins and outs of the OS and to get yourself out of trouble than Linux distros are for an average user like myself. The lack of software and the more difficult task of installing and using software and hardware with Linux are a pain in the neck.
I am not a coder but the fact that XP finds and installs hardware consistently better than Linux leads me to believe that XP is simply better or more thoroughly coded than Linux. Any linux distro that can't get my monitor right and doesn't give me the options to change the resolutions properly(several distros) the first time, gets a failing grade from me and gets removed from my system. Even win98 can do this!
I am a regular user; so ease of use is paramount and Linux isn't there yet. I have no DOS training so I don't particularly care to use the terminal that often. I also like to just be able to install a program and start using it; I don't want to take a week to get it installed or not installed at all.
Linux does seem pretty stable but so is XP.
I use my teenagers as test subjects often. They rate programs by how easy they are for them to do what they want. Needless to say when I install linux on their pc's it does not take long before they never boot into it again.
It can be called hand holding or whatever what one wants to call it; but untill linux becomes even more user friendly or dumbed down as some say and will work as expected more often it simply is not as good to me.
Untill then I will continue to use the rock solid, user friendly XP and occasinally boot into linux and play around.

Cool. And about what I expected, glad to say.

Point by point, in general.......

Quote:I do know that there are over 10 million lines of code in XP and have no idea how many there are in the average Linux distro.

Try three times that number - that's right boobycakes, it's nearly 30.8 megalines of code, and no end in sight. I don't have an accurate figure for the core of linux, as released by Linus and Co., but last I heard, core 2.4 was in the vicinity of 6 megalines. And that was with all comments intact. Whooee!

Quote: .... the fact that XP finds and installs hardware consistently better than Linux leads me to believe that XP is simply better or more thoroughly coded than Linux.

Did you stop to consider the fact that most manufacturers won't even give the time of day to non-Microsoft developers? 'Struth, sorry to say. Some companies will release "second-to-latest" version stuff to developers, others won't allow any proprietary info out the door at all, and still others foam at the mouth when their precious little babies are suddenly found in the public forums, but by then, of course, it's too late to lock the barn door. At any rate, all of this adds up to less than stellar performance in locating hardware and correctly installing the necessary drivers. I have no idea why vendors are so close-mouthed, but there it is.

Quote: .... Even win98 can do this!

Try Win 3.0, in 1990. That was able to determine your keyboard, your mouse, your adapter and monitor, your printer and if you had a modem or not. The only thing left to do was set your own resolution, but back then, nobody else was able to guess your desired resolution either, so no winner there.

Quote:I have no DOS training so I don't particularly care to use the terminal that often.

I know what you meant, but the proper term, if you want to impress your friends and neighbors, is console, not terminal. In point of fact, what you are really referring to is the Command Line Interface. And granted, that's a scary thing for someone who just wants to use the tool. That's exactly why Billg envisioned cloning the WIMP model originated at Xerox PARC, and as expounded to hisownself by Charles Simonyi. ('Nuff said. Flame posts will be deleted.) Of course, it took him 6 years to get a working version (and another couple to get one that printed! (old joke)), and some would argue that he still doesn't have it right, but you, for one, are happy with what's in front of you, so Bill's happy too.

The rest of what you said is right on target, but let me remind you that in essence, linux is an OS, and that means that it's a platform for everything else. The linux mindset includes everything you see, but I don't think that's a true picture. In fact, the only things you'll find in common between the OS (any version) and the interface gui's like Gnome or KDE are the facts that they are open source, and developed primarily for the linux kernel. (There is a version of KDE for WinXP!) Outside of that, it's a mixed bag when it comes to interfaces, apps, games, whatever. The mix-and-match paradigm is overwhelming, I'll agree to that!

But more to the point, the interface is also a central point in determining how well the underlying OS can fulfill its functions, down to and including the finding and management of hardware. So don't sell linux in general short just because you've tried some of the flavors. That's like saying that ice cream sucks when you've only tasted vanilla.


Oddysey

Oddysey

Quote:But more to the point, the interface is also a central point in determining how well the underlying OS can fulfill its functions, down to and including the finding and management of hardware. So don't sell linux in general short just because you've tried some of the flavors. That's like saying that ice cream sucks when you've only tasted vanilla.


Oddysey

I agree with pretty well all you've said. To date I've tried; SOT, Mandrake, Libranet, Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Suse, Lindows,Linspire, Knoppix, Ubuntu, Xandros, Fedora, Gnoppix and probably a few others. I've has varying success with hardware and software with each version. The best for me has been Ubuntu and Libranet which both find and install all my hardware correctly. The most dissapointing was Suse of which I had big expectations but did not find my hardware correctly. Some of the versions don't give much flexibilty in installation and just go ahead and install a boot loader where it wants instead of giving me the option; I find that unacceptable also. I use a third party boot loader imaging program.
I guess my problem is that I really enjoy trying out software, but I don't enjoy tying to make software or hardware work. I just don't want to be bothered with the work it takes when I can just boot to windows and install and use the program immediately. Many people enjoy the "challenge" of getting things to work in Linux, compiling etc., but I am not in that school.
I do find it kind of amusing that people will take hours and hours of their time to get some hardware or program to work (often marginally) in linux when they can just use it right from the getgo in windows. I am just too busy to want to do that and will move on to the next distro when I have some extra time and see how it works.

If I may interject a non-technical consideration ...

One of the main motivations behind my interest in Linux concerns freedom. I've known for some time that I would eventually move to Linux. I have major problems with Microsoft's monopolistic approach. Most of the new (or not-so-new) things coming out, involving trusted computing, Palladium, drm, etc ad nauseum, are things I don't want on my computer. (When I bought it, the credit card I used had my name on it, not Mr. Gates' or anyone else's.) What I've read about these convinced me some time ago that I would never use Longhorn/Vista. Microsoft's latest stunt, validation for updates, was just the final straw: I will not jump through their hoops (yes, my os is legal). I have problems with Microsoft corporation in a number of other areas as well. On the other hand, I'm very attracted to open-source software.

However, xp has been a satisfactory os imo. If it weren't for Microsoft's various policies, I might not be looking to switch. I do like the feel of Linux, especially of Knoppix, which seems to like my hardware. Yes, I anticipate some problems getting everything to work, and yes, I'm feeling overwhelmed by all the reading I've been doing, but it's worth it to me. Despite my complete lack of any computer science background, I feel Linux is the only logical choice for me.

You could say there's a personality conflict between Microsoft Corp. and myself which trumps all considerations of convenience.

I feel lucky to not be particularly partial or impartial to software or hardware whether open source or not. Just judge the software by how it works for me. I am not loyal either and will switch when and if something better comes along. Monopolies or oligopolies usually come about when there is a lack of good competition.
The few seconds to validate doesn't bother me either.
If spyware or information gleaning code were embedded in your Linux OS or some of the software being used on it; would you know (my question mark key is not working today)
Are banks and credit card companies keeping books on us whenever and wherever our cards get scanned.
Privacy is becoming scarce. Piracy is becoming rampant. If you had a product that was as good as M$ OS's, wouldn't you try and protect your investment. Why give patches to people with pirated OS's.
But if you feel linux is for you and you enjoy the challenge; then by all means jump right in. You will feel better by not supporting something you are uncomfortable with. (M$)
Everyone has the right to do what they want within reason.

Quote:I feel lucky to not be particularly partial or impartial to software or hardware whether open source or not. Just judge the software by how it works for me. I am not loyal either and will switch when and if something better comes along. Monopolies or oligopolies usually come about when there is a lack of good competition.

One of my beefs against MS is that it can hardly be said to encourage competition. [/understatement] Witness the predatory pursuit of patents, among other things. While I admire the open-source philosophy, I'm no purist. My use of the Proxomitron is an example. I have absolutely no problems with continuing to use it; I can't imagine finding a substitute.

Quote:The few seconds to validate doesn't bother me either.

It bothers me; I paid for it already; I won't jump through their increasingly restrictive hoops.

Quote:If spyware or information gleaning code were embedded in your Linux OS or some of the software being used on it; would you know (my question mark key is not working today)

No. I can't check the code. Knoppix could be sifting through my hd at this moment, sending data to some cracker's lair and installing a backdoor or rootkit, for all I know. However, the code in open source is available for others more knowledgable than myself to examine. Yes, I have to trust someone, but I trust them, and the open-source community as a whole, far more than I trust Microsoft or other mega-corporations.

Quote:Are banks and credit card companies keeping books on us whenever and wherever our cards get scanned.
Privacy is becoming scarce.

No disrespect, but this argument, frankly, makes no sense to me. Both due to spyware and numerous corporate/government policies, privacy is indeed threatened. That, however, is no reason to simply throw up one's hands and give in. All the more reason, in my view, to fight for it, and to make the best choices available to protect it.
A determined cracker could get into almost any computer; that doesn't mean I should get rid of my router and firewall. I'm meticulous about avoiding spyware of all sorts. Tracking cookies? No way. Very few sites are allowed to set cookies at all. The new Netscape browser with their absurdly invasive EULA? "Fuggeddaboutit." I do this in the same spirit that I lock my doors. Sure, a determined individual could easily bust it down and kill me, making off (no doubt in some disappointment) with my meagre goods. But, I'm not going to make it easy for a casual thief by leaving my door ajar.

Quote: Piracy is becoming rampant. If you had a product that was as good as M$ OS's, wouldn't you try and protect your investment. Why give patches to people with pirated OS's.

I don't entirely agree with the protection of investment argument. It always seems to put corporate profits over people, and end up eroding our rights and freedoms. And in terms of software patents, I also disagree with the corporate model. Mind you, as I said, I wouldn't reject a superior product (such as Proxomitron) simply because it's not open-source. Finally, I've seen it persuasively argued that, yes, MS should provide security patches to anyone, even if their os is not legit, as unpatched systems, especially those run by individuals who can't be bothered with basic security measures, increase the problem of virusses, worms, ddos attacks, etc, for everyone. And Microsoft's predatory business practices, imho, go beyond "protecting an investment."

Quote:But if you feel linux is for you and you enjoy the challenge; then by all means jump right in. You will feel better by not supporting something you are uncomfortable with.

Finally, we agree on something! And if you're comfortable with Microsoft, and prefer their os, then staying with it is the right choice for you. We have different criteria, different viewpoints, and will thus make different choices.

Quote:(M$)

You said it, not me!

It's my sincere hope that this entire issue will be moot as far as I'm concerned, when I manage successfully to install Linux to my hd, and make real progress towards completely leaving M$. In the weeks I've been using Knoppix, I've probably used it 95% of the time, booting into windows only to download and burn iso images to test, and do preparatory backups.

Discussions such as this are hardly infrequent in internet forums. Sometimes, individuals expressing discontent with "M$" are told to shut up and use Linux.

That's my intention.

(Sorry to be so long-winded; blame it on the feeling of relief I get taking a break from RTFM )