Newbie Linux Questions

[LeCynthia]

I ended up with a desktop that's identical to my current desktop (a Compaq Evo that's about a year old) and I thought I would try this Linux that everyone is going on about. I've never, ever used anything like this before so can anyone recommend a version that's easy to install and try out? It's all supposed to be free, right? Is there a GUI so I don't have to learn too many line commands? I would just want to be able to surf the internet, write some documents (compatible with Word, hopefully), and maybe be able to work with graphics (just simple cropping and resizing and such).

I'm not computer illiterate, I do some fairly advanced things with Microsoft and owned some Apples before but like I said I've never even seen a *nix computer being used anywhere. My old boss switched some machines over after I left to Red Hat but I was surprised to find a big price tag on that. I thought the big deal was that it was supposed to be freeware.

Anyway, I see it touted in this forum a lot so I thought I'd ask where to get it and what version may suit me. I can keep everyone updated as to how it works for a newbie in case anyone else wants to try it, too.

Thanks.

[Dogbreath]

I big distribution right now is ubuntu at http://www.ubuntu.com/
You can download an ISO CD image and burn it to disk. Just follow the prompts.
Once you download it you will probably want to get Automatix to automatically install some extras that you may want.
You might also want to try a live distro like knoppix. It is a version that runs from the cd drive without installing. It lets you try linux without installing.

[cyborg]

Is there a GUI so I don't have to learn too many line commands?

More GUIs then you could shake a stick at.

I would just want to be able to surf the internet, write some documents (compatible with Word, hopefully), and maybe be able to work with graphics (just simple cropping and resizing and such).

Seek and ye shall find. There's a wealth of applications that will run on a Linux platform. You will find most distros will include all such applications: Mozilla, Open Office, GIMP - that covers the basics you identified.

My old boss switched some machines over after I left to Red Hat but I was surprised to find a big price tag on that. I thought the big deal was that it was supposed to be freeware.

Freeware means free as in beer.

Linux is free as in speech.

Windows could be free as in beer, and indeed I have the opportunity to get legal copies of Windows for free so it is not an issue for me. What it will never be is free as in speech. I am limited in the control of my system by Windows by design and by obfuscation. The basic difference in that Linux does not seek to limit the control of the end user either by design or obfuscation. That is what makes it free, not the price tag.

It is not uncommon for Enterprise distros to charge business for specific features not found in the free distros for support etc...

Anyway, I see it touted in this forum a lot so I thought I'd ask where to get it and what version may suit me.

Any Live DVD/CD would be a suitable starting point. As such you may find it most convenient to find a Linux magazine since they generally give them away on their covers - along with full distros. It is a lot more convenient than spending the time downloading.

[kevin]

I'd probably go with Ubuntu as recommended above. My dad likes SUSE, but he also likes OS/2 so go figure.

The no-cost version of Red Hat is called Fedora.

http://fedora.redhat.com/

It's not identical to Red Hat, but it's probably the closest around.

[strathmeyer]

Is there a GUI so I don't have to learn too many line commands?

You're not ready for Linux. Come back when you're willing to learn to do something new in order to do something new.

[cyborg]

You're not ready for Linux. Come back when you're willing to learn to do something new in order to do something new.

Yes that is helpful. :rolleyes:

[Ducky]

Yes that is helpful. :rolleyes:

Indeed. In fact anyone that can muck through an XP or Win2K install can get through a ubuntu/kubuntu/xubuntu or fedora core 6 install. Not to mention there are plenty of how-to's and guides on the intarwebz to google.

LeCynthia, if all you are used to is windows, I would reccommend Kubuntu. You will be more comfortable with the KDE default layout they give in that than the gnome desktop in Ubuntu, however they are all fairly easy to poke through and understand.

Once you have it installed, I would reccommend picking up an O'Reilly manual on linux, or perhaps a Linux for Dummies and walking through the ideas touched on in your new machine to learn more about what linux is about.

[LeCynthia]

You're not ready for Linux. Come back when you're willing to learn to do something new in order to do something new.

The whole point of this trial is that so many times people tout how linux is free (or at least cheap) and it's just as easy to use as Windows. If I have to learn six thousand line commands to use Linux then everything I've heard about it is false. Yes, I'm not affraid of line commands, I use them on a daily basis, but I'm not trying to run a network file server or anything like that, I want a simple machine to use at home. If I wasn't willing to learn something new I wouldn't be trying this at all.

Pompus a-holes can simply stay out of this thread if you have nothing useful to add. Whenever a "how-to" in Windows question is asked all the Linux users are quick to say "use linux and you don't have that worry" but then when someone asks about a solution to switch an answer like this comes back. I'll bet I could run circles around any Windows users in here and if a linux user has a question about Windows I would never say, "you're not ready for Windows". With people like you it's no wonder more people don't try it.

[cyborg]

The whole point of this trial is that so many times people tout how linux is free (or at least cheap) and it's just as easy to use as Windows. If I have to learn six thousand line commands to use Linux then everything I've heard about it is false.

Faulty reasoning.

GUIs do not guarantee ease of use.

CLIs do not guarantee difficulty of use.

That is all.

[LeCynthia]

Faulty reasoning.

GUIs do not guarantee ease of use.

CLIs do not guarantee difficulty of use.

That is all.

True, but the point is he could have said something like this without trying to insult my intelligence. Strathmeyer's comment was just a pompus remark without knowing all the facts and stuff like that just isn't welcomed when someone is trying to learn something new.

I'm glad there are helpful people in here who have steered me in the right direction and thanks for that.

[cyborg]

Strathmeyer's comment was just a pompus remark without knowing all the facts and stuff like that just isn't welcomed when someone is trying to learn something new.

No doubt - like I said, hardly helpful.

[LeCynthia]

What file system does linux use? I have a second drive formatted in NTFS with thousands of pics and files on it, will linux see this okay? I was hoping to just put this drive in the linux machine as a secondary as a quick way to transfer all my files over and if it doesn't work out I can just put it back in a Windows machine. Or if I run it from a CD like some have suggested will it see both hard drives as-is?

[cyborg]

What file system does linux use?

There are several popular file systems.

Neither FAT, FAT32 or NTFS are native ones though.

I have a second drive formatted in NTFS with thousands of pics and files on it, will linux see this okay?

If it is unencrypted there is a good chance. Unfortunately NTFS ain't exactly well documented and MS aren't exactly bothered about other OSes being able to read it. Writing to it isn't going to happen.

Or if I run it from a CD like some have suggested will it see both hard drives as-is?

Running from CD should be done to test this - avoid the hassle of installing until you are comfortable with doing so.

[Ducky]

I sent a PM about this, but there are NTFS read drivers available in the FC6 and Ubuntu distros. Like Cyborg said, you could probably read from it if it wasn't encrypted (doubt it is, but I am not at your machine to know.)

You should use your friend google for specifics. There are TONS of resources out there. Just google "ntfs" and "ubuntu" or "fedora core" and sift through for a few minutes. The answer will be there.

[logical muse]

If I understand your requirements and concerns correctly, in my opinion virtually any of the linux distributions should suffice.

Try kubuntu. Like most linux distributions, it's free. You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubuntu

There are links on that page to the official site, and other relevant sites.

Installation is a snap (usually!) and you'll be able to do all the common tasks from within a relatively nice GUI. You'll never need go near a command line if you don't you.

You'll be able to work with documents using OpenOffice, browse the web with Firefox, edit and create image files with Gimp, email with Thunderbird, and, well, do pretty much anything else you want, all with free software.

[LeCynthia]

Thanks guys. Just so you know I pick up this machine on Monday and it has a blank drive in it so I'm not worried about loading it and losing anything. This was just a starting point as doing a Google search turned up hundreds of thousands of pages so I just wanted a starting point. Now that my search is narrowed down I should be ready to go on Monday.

Thanks.

[kevin]

Captive NTFS can read/write NTFS from Linux. It requires using an ntfs.sys file from Windows to do it.

http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/

BTW, it sounds like your existing machine has the photos and you're getting a new computer for Linux? If so, then you can share the drive from Windows and Linux can read/write it via SAMBA even if it is on an NTFS partition.

Linux is much more visibily layered than Windows is. The Linux kernel is the lowest level and many add-ons are available for the kernel, including many filesystem options.

I use EXT3 for my boot drives and XFS for my data drives.

When you install from a CD most likely you'll be offered the option of EXT2 or EXT3. Perhaps Reiser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS

I also use LVM2 to combine all my drives into a single terabyte partition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVM2

[tygirwulf]

I've played around with a lot of the more newbie-friendly distros over the years, and I've come to prefer a distro called PCLInuxOS. They are in the process of working on a new version, however, and have unfortunately removed all links to the older versions. I imagine the final version of .94/2007 will come out in the next few weeks. You can still download the test release for it and have a look around on the LiveCD, and even install it if you wish. You'll be able to upgrade it through the repositories when the final version is released.

Admittedly, as much as I like it, it's not practical for me to use it right now. One of my PCs is used for recording TV and the other for playing games. I have it on my laptop, though. One of the things that has impressed me about Linux in general is that it seems to be quick to install. I was absolutely amazed when I tried Mepis long ago and it took only 12 minutes to install before I had to reboot to remove the liveCD.

A word of warning. You're going to need to be comfortable with creating and formatting partitions. A lot of distros can do this automatically for various situations, ranging from "clear off my entire hard drive and format for linux" to "keep windows, just find a little space for linux somewhere" or you can do it all yourself. Since you're getting a pc with a fresh hard drive, I imagine you're not too worried, but it's still nice to have that.

Have fun, and hopefully you won't run into any odd problems. If you do, I'm sure someone here or on the forum for your chosen distribution can answer it for you.

[LeCynthia]

BTW, it sounds like your existing machine has the photos and you're getting a new computer for Linux? If so, then you can share the drive from Windows and Linux can read/write it via SAMBA even if it is on an NTFS partition.

Yes, the new machine is clean and the old one has about 12 gigs of pics and 1 gig of documents and since we are in them alot I didn't want to slow anything down by accessing them over a network share. We can, however, install a new drive and copy them all over some night. But that's getting ahead of myself, I just want to get the OS up and running and try some of the programs out there that's available for it. Once/if I get comfortable with it then I'll worry about the second drive. I just wondered if it could simply be moved over and it looks like yes and no, so I'll hold off on that for now.

Microsoft pissed me off after I installed Office 2007 and the new Internet Explorer. I cheerfully spent hours working on documents only to discover that when I transferred them to my laptop nothing would open with 2003 and I had download add-ons and spend a lot of time reformatting everything. 2007 just seems like it takes more work to do the same thing. Security on the browser keeps resetting to medium after I get everything to where I want it and to where all my web pages work. Both slowed my machine down noticably. I would have been okay if I hadn't upgraded anything but if this is the direction they are heading I can no longer be on board 100% with Microsoft. So I thought I'd try Linux just see if the rumors are true that it will work smoother and be a bit quicker.

I don't think I'll have any problem working with pictures but I can only hope my documents will look normal. Anyway, I've nothing but time on my hands so it may be fun to at least try it. (Fun? Trying a new OS? I must have turned geeky at some point.)

[Dogbreath]

When you go to install whatever distribution you choose, if possible when going through the prompts setup the Home folder as its own partition. This way if you decide to upgrade or try a different distribution you can keep all your old data.
As for the command line, on a day to day basis I do not use it. From time to time, you will use the command line to install software. There are a lot of helpful websites and when it comes to installing additional software they usually give you the commands that you can copy and paste into the command line. As I mentioned before Automatix will let you install several applications by just checking the boxes. And since you mentioned photos, try F-Spot photo manager. It is pretty slick. Also just like windows, right click is your friend. I don't know how much time I spent trying to figure out what application I needed to run so that I could burn an ISO of Project Gutenburg when all I had to do was right click the file and select burn. Sometimes they make things too easy.

[MortFurd]

There are several popular file systems.

Neither FAT, FAT32 or NTFS are native ones though.



If it is unencrypted there is a good chance. Unfortunately NTFS ain't exactly well documented and MS aren't exactly bothered about other OSes being able to read it. Writing to it isn't going to happen.



Running from CD should be done to test this - avoid the hassle of installing until you are comfortable with doing so.

Wrongo, Batman. CaptiveFS writes to NTFS partitions if you have access to Windows and you are running an x86 processor. It uses the native Windows DLL to access the filesystem, and can read and write easily.

Knoppix also writes to NTFS, though I'm not sure what it uses.

[MortFurd]

I ended up with a desktop that's identical to my current desktop (a Compaq Evo that's about a year old) and I thought I would try this Linux that everyone is going on about. I've never, ever used anything like this before so can anyone recommend a version that's easy to install and try out? It's all supposed to be free, right? Is there a GUI so I don't have to learn too many line commands? I would just want to be able to surf the internet, write some documents (compatible with Word, hopefully), and maybe be able to work with graphics (just simple cropping and resizing and such).

I'm not computer illiterate, I do some fairly advanced things with Microsoft and owned some Apples before but like I said I've never even seen a *nix computer being used anywhere. My old boss switched some machines over after I left to Red Hat but I was surprised to find a big price tag on that. I thought the big deal was that it was supposed to be freeware.

Anyway, I see it touted in this forum a lot so I thought I'd ask where to get it and what version may suit me. I can keep everyone updated as to how it works for a newbie in case anyone else wants to try it, too.

Thanks.
This is not intended as a smart ass comment, but is meant seriously. If you doubt the existence of a GUI for Linux, I really wonder how well informed you are on the subject.

There is an enormous wealth of information available on the subject of Linux. A google search will deliver more links than you could read in a lifetime.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linux_For_Newbies) has a Linux newbie article with links to various distributions and live CDs, as well as links to more information.

Check it out.

If you have questions on details or get stuck trying to do something, feel free to ask.

MortFurd, Linux user since 1997.

[cyborg]

CaptiveFS writes to NTFS partitions if you have access to Windows and you are running an x86 processor. It uses the native Windows DLL to access the filesystem, and can read and write easily.

That all sounds like it's on rather dubious grounds.

Knoppix also writes to NTFS, though I'm not sure what it uses.

Last time I checked if you created a big ass file for Knoppix then it could use it with aplomb.

[skoob]

NTFS-3g (http://www.ntfs-3g.org) makes it possible to write to NTFS. If you are using Ubuntu, NTFS-3g is packaged in Universe (http://packages.ubuntu.com/edgy/otherosfs/ntfs-3g). You'll also need to edit your /etc/fstab (http://www.arsgeek.com/?p=675).

[Reed]

Let me add that you might consider contacting your local Linux Users Group (LUG) as they will gladly make themselves available for any troubleshooting and configuration issues you may encounter.

BTW, I also recommend Ubuntu.

[Axiom_Blade]

A few thoughts:

A) The big deal about Linux isn't that it's free (in price), so much as that it's FREE (as in freedom). Even if you're not a programmer, the fact that the source code is freely available is a benefit to you as a user, because that means that it's updated more frequently, and is generally more robust than closed-source software. Larger pool of programmers = better code.

B) I'm recommending Kubuntu. (http://www.kubuntu.org/) (Any of the *ubuntus are great; Kubuntu is just the one that ships with KDE, a popular desktop environment that I like.)

C) Surfing the Internet = Firefox.
Word processing = Open Office (and, yes, it creates .doc files, too.)
Image manipulation = GIMP. (Although, there might be a simpler program for low-level stuff like crop/resize.)

D) It'll read your NTFS drive for sure. I don't know about writing, because so far I've been too chicken to try out NTFS-3g. I've heard it works quite well, though.

Since it sounds like you only use your computer for a few simple tasks, you should have little problem switching over.

[Ducky]

Lifehacker linked to a story today that will be of good help. It's 13 things to do to Ubuntu (or kubuntu, xubuntu etc.) after install to make things run more smoothly, including installing NTFS3g:

http://linuxondesktop.blogspot.com/2007/02/13-things-to-do-immediately-after.html

Also, this is a nice app that does much of what that article says:

http://easyubuntu.freecontrib.org/

Hope this helps.

Gotta run, very late. I'll post more later.

[aerosolben]

Microsoft pissed me off after I installed Office 2007 and the new Internet Explorer. I cheerfully spent hours working on documents only to discover that when I transferred them to my laptop nothing would open with 2003 and I had download add-ons and spend a lot of time reformatting everything. 2007 just seems like it takes more work to do the same thing.
You know, you can save files in Office 2007 in the old document formats - I do this all the time and haven't had any problems with formatting.

[jimlintott]

I agree that many Windows users would be more comfortable with KDE than Gnome. Mac users would probably prefer Gnome. Personally I like KDE. It is very flexible and powerful for customizing.

In regards to the command line, during normal desktop usage you will likely never need it. So don't worry about it. It is certainly worth learning as it can be very powerful and surprisingly easy to use. I think the BASH command line is a far better file manager than any GUI file manager I've ever used. I do use Konquerer as a file manager quite frequently but sometimes the task just needs the CLI. It's having that option that I like about Linux.

Try a couple of the distros mentioned here you may find you like one more than others. Along with Kubuntu I would suggest Mandriva and Suse.

Speaking of old GUIs, is it just me or do screen shots of MS Vista showing those dockable apps look a lot like Windowmaker? (The dockable apps not the 3d look. Windowmaker is pretty old.)

[This Guy]

I'd like to give a plug for Red Hat.

I haven't played with it in several years, but I had downloaded several versions. Mandrake, SUSE and a few others also.

Around version 5 or 6 I decided to actually buy it from them. Mainly to get the printed docs. At the time, the version was a new release, and demand was high. They were not able to ship it when promised (I think it ended up 2 or 3 days later than expected). As compensation, they shipped a free book on some aspect of Linux. One of the shells or something..CRON maybe. I don't know. I hate loosing my memory ;)

Whatever it was, it was a nice thick book, with a lot of pages and stuff! :D

I looked it up, and it sold for about $15.00 at the time. I think I paid $30 or so for the Linux. The book came with an apology from them, for the delay.
Anyway, I really thought that was a great, and in my case, unneeded move on their part. Really impressed me.

But then, it doesn't take much to impress me ;)

Not saying buy Red Hat over free copies of some of the other suggested versions, just want to point out that IMHO Red Hat is a good company. If you decide to buy a package, might want to consider them.

And their free distributions aren't at all bad! Their RPM system makes adding on/Removing packages very easy, and I'm pretty sure KDE and GNOME are both supplied (GNOME is default I believe, but there is a KDE option if you use the GUI install).

[Ducky]

I'd like to give a plug for Red Hat.

I haven't played with it in several years, but I had downloaded several versions. Mandrake, SUSE and a few others also.

Around version 5 or 6 I decided to actually buy it from them. Mainly to get the printed docs. At the time, the version was a new release, and demand was high. They were not able to ship it when promised (I think it ended up 2 or 3 days later than expected). As compensation, they shipped a free book on some aspect of Linux. One of the shells or something..CRON maybe. I don't know. I hate loosing my memory ;)

Whatever it was, it was a nice thick book, with a lot of pages and stuff! :D

I looked it up, and it sold for about $15.00 at the time. I think I paid $30 or so for the Linux. The book came with an apology from them, for the delay.
Anyway, I really thought that was a great, and in my case, unneeded move on their part. Really impressed me.

But then, it doesn't take much to impress me ;)

Not saying buy Red Hat over free copies of some of the other suggested versions, just want to point out that IMHO Red Hat is a good company. If you decide to buy a package, might want to consider them.

And their free distributions aren't at all bad! Their RPM system makes adding on/Removing packages very easy, and I'm pretty sure KDE and GNOME are both supplied (GNOME is default I believe, but there is a KDE option if you use the GUI install).


I have Fedora Core, which is the GPL development of Red Hat, but I was under the impression that Red Hat Enterprise is what they sell now, and it is pretty pricey for a home user. IIRC Fedora Core came out of the "home version" becoming a community open source project.

I very much like FC6.

[This Guy]

I have Fedora Core, which is the GPL development of Red Hat, but I was under the impression that Red Hat Enterprise is what they sell now, and it is pretty pricey for a home user. IIRC Fedora Core came out of the "home version" becoming a community open source project.

I very much like FC6.

I've slept since my post, and either cleared up some of my memory, or added to it in my dreams ;)

Enterprise, I believe, is geared more toward servers and business users of course, and the purchased packages included service/support. The service/support used to be included in bought packages for "home" users, though not as extensive as the Enterprise offerings. I forget what the package I bought was actually called, but I'm pretty sure it was RH version 5. I actually had access to install help, and support, for, I don't know, 30, maybe 60 or 90 days from activation. I don't think I ever activated it. But I think a toll free number for phone support was part of the deal, and E-mail support also I think. I'm going back a few years, and I haven't kept up, so I have no idea what's out there from Red Hat now.

I did remember something that makes me a liar in my earlier post. I believe Red Hat had dropped KDE with the version I bought. The KDE folks were using a nonstandard GNU GPL at the time, and I think Red Hat quit including it, but intended to start including it again when some questions were cleared up. Again, that being a number of years ago, I don't know what the status of Red Hat/KDE is today. My guess is KDE is included, but I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure there is a RPM version of KDE out there though.

[Ducky]

I've slept since my post, and either cleared up some of my memory, or added to it in my dreams ;)

Enterprise, I believe, is geared more toward servers and business users of course, and the purchased packages included service/support. The service/support used to be included in bought packages for "home" users, though not as extensive as the Enterprise offerings. I forget what the package I bought was actually called, but I'm pretty sure it was RH version 5. I actually had access to install help, and support, for, I don't know, 30, maybe 60 or 90 days from activation. I don't think I ever activated it. But I think a toll free number for phone support was part of the deal, and E-mail support also I think. I'm going back a few years, and I haven't kept up, so I have no idea what's out there from Red Hat now.

I did remember something that makes me a liar in my earlier post. I believe Red Hat had dropped KDE with the version I bought. The KDE folks were using a nonstandard GNU GPL at the time, and I think Red Hat quit including it, but intended to start including it again when some questions were cleared up. Again, that being a number of years ago, I don't know what the status of Red Hat/KDE is today. My guess is KDE is included, but I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure there is a RPM version of KDE out there though.

Quite a bit has changed since RH5. I had that version also. if you check http://www.redhat.com/ you'll notice the pay versions are all geared toward enterprise/business solutions. The "home" version, if we can consider that one exists, is now Fedora Core. Gnome is a default install, but KDE is available, as well as a few others through added repositories.


ETA:
Red Hat Linux is marketed primarily as a server operating system. It is also popular among companies running computing farms and the like as the built-in installation scripting tool "kickstart" enables fast configuring and set up of standardized hardware. From version 8.0, Red Hat has also targeted the corporate desktop.

Red Hat Linux was originally developed exclusively inside Red Hat, with the only feedback from users coming through bug reports and contributions to the included software packages — not contributions to the distribution as such. This was changed late in 2003 when Red Hat Linux merged with the community-based Fedora Linux project. The new plan is to draw most of the codebase from Fedora when creating new Red Hat Enterprise Linux distributions. Fedora Core (sometimes incorrectly referred to as Fedora Linux) replaces the original Red Hat Linux download and retail version. The model is similar to the relationship between Netscape Communicator and Mozilla, or StarOffice and OpenOffice.org, although in this case the resulting commercial product is also fully free software

Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux)

[malbui]

I very much like FC6.
I've been playing with Red Hat since 4.2 and I've just upgraded from FC3 to FC6 and am very pleased with the results. It seems to me that after all these years we've now got to a version that just works - for the first time ever, I had no significant post-install tweaking to do. And it looks pretty.

[MortFurd]

I've slept since my post, and either cleared up some of my memory, or added to it in my dreams ;)

Enterprise, I believe, is geared more toward servers and business users of course, and the purchased packages included service/support. The service/support used to be included in bought packages for "home" users, though not as extensive as the Enterprise offerings. I forget what the package I bought was actually called, but I'm pretty sure it was RH version 5. I actually had access to install help, and support, for, I don't know, 30, maybe 60 or 90 days from activation. I don't think I ever activated it. But I think a toll free number for phone support was part of the deal, and E-mail support also I think. I'm going back a few years, and I haven't kept up, so I have no idea what's out there from Red Hat now.

I did remember something that makes me a liar in my earlier post. I believe Red Hat had dropped KDE with the version I bought. The KDE folks were using a nonstandard GNU GPL at the time, and I think Red Hat quit including it, but intended to start including it again when some questions were cleared up. Again, that being a number of years ago, I don't know what the status of Red Hat/KDE is today. My guess is KDE is included, but I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure there is a RPM version of KDE out there though.
GPL =GNU Public License.

The thing you are remembering is that KDE uses the QT libraries for the GUI. When they started developing KDE, QT was not under the GPL. It was licensed from TrollTech under a "free for use on Linux" special license that wasn't (strictly speaking) compatible with releasing KDE under the GPL. Since the licensing wasn't clear, several distributions dropped KDE.

TrollTech has released QT under the GPL, and KDE uses the GPL licensed version these days. The license questions are cleared up, so there's no longer a problem (legal or ethical) with KDE - just the question of "do I like KDE, Gnome, or one of the others better?"

[This Guy]

Quite a bit has changed since RH5. I had that version also. if you check http://www.redhat.com/ you'll notice the pay versions are all geared toward enterprise/business solutions. The "home" version, if we can consider that one exists, is now Fedora Core. Gnome is a default install, but KDE is available, as well as a few others through added repositories.


ETA:




Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux)

Thanks for the update!

[This Guy]

GPL =GNU Public License.

The thing you are remembering is that KDE uses the QT libraries for the GUI. When they started developing KDE, QT was not under the GPL. It was licensed from TrollTech under a "free for use on Linux" special license that wasn't (strictly speaking) compatible with releasing KDE under the GPL. Since the licensing wasn't clear, several distributions dropped KDE.

TrollTech has released QT under the GPL, and KDE uses the GPL licensed version these days. The license questions are cleared up, so there's no longer a problem (legal or ethical) with KDE - just the question of "do I like KDE, Gnome, or one of the others better?"

That sounds about right, thanks for clearing up my memory :)

I'm pretty sure I downloaded an RPM version of KDE to go with my Red Hat package.

As I recall, that release of Red Hat had a new Kernel that was quite an improvement over earlier releases. Not sure, but I think USB and some other fairly important mainstream items were given support.

I never did more than play around with Linux. Normally either on a 2nd machine, or in a dual boot config. It was mostly just to sooth my OS itch. Before Windows 95, I longed for a decent multitasking OS. Not because I NEEDED it, but because I've always tried to get my computer to do as much as it could. Of course DOS didn't do it. But DR DOS did (in a somewhat limited fashion anyway). And Linux did. But by the time I figured out what Linux could do (or what I could do with it) 95 came out, and I went with it. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 never "felt good" to me, was like DOS with pictures ;) I'd get a newer version of Linux every now and then, and install it, and see what I could do, get bored, and forget it again for a year. Haven't installed it since that RH I mentioned. But I did just download Kubunta AMD64, just to check it out. Got the Desktop CD version (couldn't seem to get the DVD version to download in the AMD64 version). Gonna try that without installing, and if I like it, and it supports install without destroying my XP, I may go Dual Boot with it, just to have a new toy ;)

[LeCynthia]

This is not intended as a smart ass comment, but is meant seriously. If you doubt the existence of a GUI for Linux, I really wonder how well informed you are on the subject.

There is an enormous wealth of information available on the subject of Linux. A google search will deliver more links than you could read in a lifetime.


What I meant was a full-time GUI. One that I don't have to go back and forth to a command prompt to do things. And the overload of information is exactly why I thought I'd ask the experts here for a starting point. I could have spent weeks wading through information but I trust JREF'ers to give me good advice.

It may all be a moot point as the fates are conspiring against me. First, I dropped my tower from my truck and it no longer recognizes the hard drive, so I'm waiting for the new drive to show up. Also, the storms here in Iowa keeps knocking the power out as they work on the lines so everytime I start something we get put in the dark for a few minutes and I have to start over. Plus we have a couple families living with until the power comes back on in their area so it's really crowded here for now. The Linux gods are frowning on me. I did have a friend bring over a box set up with Fedora so I'm playing with that in the mean time and learning my way around, when the power is steady.

You know, you can save files in Office 2007 in the old document formats - I do this all the time and haven't had any problems with formatting.

Yes, but saving a file was a one-click process. To save in an older format you have to go through several steps. And there was no warning that there was a new file type so I had to go back and covert several files. They took something simple and made it more complicated. Just like some of the sites in my favorites used to just load but now I have to "activate the active-x" from a drop-down menu and the page has to reload each time and when I set security to stop doing this it resets to medium after each restart. FTP is now several steps, I log into my ftp site, then have to select through the file menu to open in a window and I have to sign in a second time for that. I check save password each time to no avail. I thought progress was supposed to make things easier, not take a one-click process and turn it into a six-click process. Small on the cosmic scale of things, but "backward progress" seems to be the buzzwords at Microsoft these days. I know it's all done in the name of security but holy cow. Coming to a sad realization, allow or deny.....

[cyborg]

What I meant was a full-time GUI. One that I don't have to go back and forth to a command prompt to do things.

That is an application issue, not a Linux issue.

I do hate the fact that MS has successfully confused the aspects of an OS in this way.

[logical muse]

What I meant was a full-time GUI. One that I don't have to go back and forth to a command prompt to do things.

Just so it's clear, any recent distribution (ubuntu, kubuntu, fc, suse, etc, etc...) will have a "full-time GUI". Turn your computer on and it will boot into a GUI asking you to log in, and then load a GUI for you to work with. You can do just about anything in the GUI, just like you do in Windows and OSX. All the major applications run in the GUI.

If you need the command line for any reason, you don't need to switch out of the GUI. You just run the console application, sort of like the command box or whatever it's called in Windows.

[This Guy]

I mentioned DR Dos above. That should have been Double DOS.