I don't know why I could never get the hang of vi; I guess I'm set in my ways. In university, they pushed vi, at least in the class materials. I stuck with Emacs. That's one of the first things I install after getting the operating system up and running.
Linux Mint users: This is the one you'll want
- Thread starter uc50ic4more
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Garak
I don't know why I could never get the hang of vi;
I have always used "getting the hang" of vi to be a beacon, or compass, in my life and a measure of the lives of others: For if you ever "get the hang" of vi, YOU'RE IN TOO DEEP and there may not be any hope left for you; because the only logical step after "getting the hang" of vi is ed
I don't know why I could never get the hang of vi;
I have always used "getting the hang" of vi to be a beacon, or compass, in my life and a measure of the lives of others: For if you ever "get the hang" of vi, YOU'RE IN TOO DEEP and there may not be any hope left for you; because the only logical step after "getting the hang" of vi is ed
Originally Posted By: Mfrank84
But I'm a little nervous after reading through this topic. I don't have a clue what most of you are talking about.
Most of what I know about computers is from using them and the guidance from this forum. I tried Linux years ago and it just did not work as well as Windows at that time.
Now I am loving it. There is a learning curve (new terms,programs,etc). When I installed Mint I set it up so that I did not have to put in password every time my computer was idle for some time. I think that was a choice when installing.
Now it is mostly turning computer on and I am online.
There seems to be a Geek factor to Linux. But you can just keep it simple.
Many of the people here have forgotten more about computers than I know. So don't let that overwhelm you.
In my experience if you are just a little bit familiar with computers you can install and use Linux without a lot of problems. That is why I am staying with it over Windows most of the time. I like Mint over Ubuntu. Linux comes in different flavours. You just need to find one works best for your needs. Good luck!
But I'm a little nervous after reading through this topic. I don't have a clue what most of you are talking about.
Most of what I know about computers is from using them and the guidance from this forum. I tried Linux years ago and it just did not work as well as Windows at that time.
Now I am loving it. There is a learning curve (new terms,programs,etc). When I installed Mint I set it up so that I did not have to put in password every time my computer was idle for some time. I think that was a choice when installing.
Now it is mostly turning computer on and I am online.
There seems to be a Geek factor to Linux. But you can just keep it simple.
Many of the people here have forgotten more about computers than I know. So don't let that overwhelm you.
In my experience if you are just a little bit familiar with computers you can install and use Linux without a lot of problems. That is why I am staying with it over Windows most of the time. I like Mint over Ubuntu. Linux comes in different flavours. You just need to find one works best for your needs. Good luck!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I like nano and emacs, never got used to vi. Same with the various shells, I always end up back at bash.
Originally Posted By: MONKEYMAN
There seems to be a Geek factor to Linux. But you can just keep it simple.
Linux-based OS's are the only ones that respect a user's freedom to tinker and study and truly customize; so a certain type of user is drawn exclusively to it.
Rest assured, whomever is reading this, that there are Linux-based OS's out there (most notably Mint, Ubuntu) that are made specifically for "just using" without the need to ever do anything nerd-like.
There seems to be a Geek factor to Linux. But you can just keep it simple.
Linux-based OS's are the only ones that respect a user's freedom to tinker and study and truly customize; so a certain type of user is drawn exclusively to it.
Rest assured, whomever is reading this, that there are Linux-based OS's out there (most notably Mint, Ubuntu) that are made specifically for "just using" without the need to ever do anything nerd-like.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Rest assured, whomever is reading this, that there are Linux-based OS's out there (most notably Mint, Ubuntu) that are made specifically for "just using" without the need to ever do anything nerd-like.
That's the important part. The average person can use one of several versions of Linux without every worrying about whether he should be using vi or Emacs or something else. Someone should play a good trick and replace all the vi repositories with Emacs repositories, but that's another issue.
Rest assured, whomever is reading this, that there are Linux-based OS's out there (most notably Mint, Ubuntu) that are made specifically for "just using" without the need to ever do anything nerd-like.
That's the important part. The average person can use one of several versions of Linux without every worrying about whether he should be using vi or Emacs or something else. Someone should play a good trick and replace all the vi repositories with Emacs repositories, but that's another issue.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
.... I run 2GB and Linux Mint 16 XFCE x64 bit never uses more than 500 MB for what I do.
Just curious - if you only have 2 GB of memory, why run x64 binaries?
Wouldn't x86 (32-bit) be more efficient when 64-bit isn't needed, because I assume:
1. 32-bit addressing can directly and completely use 2 GB.
3. 64-bit programs have a significantly larger memory footprint.
Or do modern x64 processors simply run 64-bit binaries faster than 32-bit binaries?
.... I run 2GB and Linux Mint 16 XFCE x64 bit never uses more than 500 MB for what I do.
Just curious - if you only have 2 GB of memory, why run x64 binaries?
Wouldn't x86 (32-bit) be more efficient when 64-bit isn't needed, because I assume:
1. 32-bit addressing can directly and completely use 2 GB.
3. 64-bit programs have a significantly larger memory footprint.
Or do modern x64 processors simply run 64-bit binaries faster than 32-bit binaries?
Mageia vs Mint, which is better?
When Linux Mint 17 comes out is it possible it will have better hardware support for newer machines?
Well that would be great if it does. I'd love to get Linux Mint working on my laptop. I will certainly try it out as soon as it comes out!
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Mageia vs Mint, which is better?
Both are top-echelon Linux distributions. Of the hundreds and hundreds of distributions out there, only a handful could be considered be polished, complete, robust, reliable desktop operating systems. Both Mint and Mageia are of that quality. Both feature dedicated development teams and large user bases, and both are well-tested.
As far as *I* am concerned (I implore you not to confuse my entirely subjective thoughts with "fact") Mint has these advantages:
1) It is based on Ubuntu and therefore has Ubuntu's software repositories; the largest in the Linux world.
2) It is based on Ubuntu and therefore has access to more third-party and proprietary applications. Many developers will feature Ubuntu PPA's (Personal Project Archive? I forget what it stands for...) for their software, where installing software not in a distros normal repositories might be like installing software in Windows or Mac (read: a pain in the butt).
3) It is based on Ubuntu and therefore has LTS releases every 2 years. This longer support cycle means less upgrades and even more stable releases.
3) Although both feature all of the major, popular desktop environments, Mageia seems to be a KDE-centric distro, and I prefer both Cinnamon and MATE over KDE.
4) Mint is more liberal with not-exactly-legal-to-redistribute software, making using proprietary codecs, drivers, etc. easier for the end user.
Between Ubuntu and it's family (Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu Gnome) and it's derivatives (Mint, and a host of others including the up-and-coming elementary), Debian, openSUSE, Fedora, Mageia, PCLinuxOS you will find it impossible to find which is "better" because that depends on what "better" means to *you*. The beauty of open-source software is that enough teams have developed enough different OS's with so many different purposes that if you spend the time to evaluate them you are bound to find the right one for you. One day you may even be driven to punish yourself by trying Gentoo or Arch, where you have to build the system from the ground up: the equivalent of buying a car and having a pile of parts and an assembly manual dropped on your lawn.
I administer systems for several friends, family and neighbours and I have chosen Ubuntu for those people. I use the LTS releases and every one of my "clients" are deliriously happy. On my personal system(s) I "distro-hop" and change between variants of Debian (using either Gnome or XFCE), Ubuntu (Unity), Fedora (Gnome) and Arch (no desktop environment, or one I cobble together using some XFCE and some LXDE components). I know in doing this that my data migrates with me and I am free (!) to experiment and learn all I want.
Mageia vs Mint, which is better?
Both are top-echelon Linux distributions. Of the hundreds and hundreds of distributions out there, only a handful could be considered be polished, complete, robust, reliable desktop operating systems. Both Mint and Mageia are of that quality. Both feature dedicated development teams and large user bases, and both are well-tested.
As far as *I* am concerned (I implore you not to confuse my entirely subjective thoughts with "fact") Mint has these advantages:
1) It is based on Ubuntu and therefore has Ubuntu's software repositories; the largest in the Linux world.
2) It is based on Ubuntu and therefore has access to more third-party and proprietary applications. Many developers will feature Ubuntu PPA's (Personal Project Archive? I forget what it stands for...) for their software, where installing software not in a distros normal repositories might be like installing software in Windows or Mac (read: a pain in the butt).
3) It is based on Ubuntu and therefore has LTS releases every 2 years. This longer support cycle means less upgrades and even more stable releases.
3) Although both feature all of the major, popular desktop environments, Mageia seems to be a KDE-centric distro, and I prefer both Cinnamon and MATE over KDE.
4) Mint is more liberal with not-exactly-legal-to-redistribute software, making using proprietary codecs, drivers, etc. easier for the end user.
Between Ubuntu and it's family (Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu Gnome) and it's derivatives (Mint, and a host of others including the up-and-coming elementary), Debian, openSUSE, Fedora, Mageia, PCLinuxOS you will find it impossible to find which is "better" because that depends on what "better" means to *you*. The beauty of open-source software is that enough teams have developed enough different OS's with so many different purposes that if you spend the time to evaluate them you are bound to find the right one for you. One day you may even be driven to punish yourself by trying Gentoo or Arch, where you have to build the system from the ground up: the equivalent of buying a car and having a pile of parts and an assembly manual dropped on your lawn.
I administer systems for several friends, family and neighbours and I have chosen Ubuntu for those people. I use the LTS releases and every one of my "clients" are deliriously happy. On my personal system(s) I "distro-hop" and change between variants of Debian (using either Gnome or XFCE), Ubuntu (Unity), Fedora (Gnome) and Arch (no desktop environment, or one I cobble together using some XFCE and some LXDE components). I know in doing this that my data migrates with me and I am free (!) to experiment and learn all I want.
Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
Just curious - if you only have 2 GB of memory, why run x64 binaries?
Wouldn't x86 (32-bit) be more efficient when 64-bit isn't needed, because I assume:
1. 32-bit addressing can directly and completely use 2 GB.
3. 64-bit programs have a significantly larger memory footprint.
Or do modern x64 processors simply run 64-bit binaries faster than 32-bit binaries?
Running in "long mode" (64 bits) has many advantages over "legacy" (32 bits) mode, even if you haven't hit the 4GB memory limit (which was only a problem in lousy OS's like Windows - PAE let Linux break that barrier long ago. It's an artificial limit anyway, thank MS for that).
64 bit registers, a greater number of registers, and I believe a lot of the newer extension sets only function when you are in long mode. So really, the only downside is wasting a bit of space, but the gains are otherwise quite large and I'd say worth it.
Just curious - if you only have 2 GB of memory, why run x64 binaries?
Wouldn't x86 (32-bit) be more efficient when 64-bit isn't needed, because I assume:
1. 32-bit addressing can directly and completely use 2 GB.
3. 64-bit programs have a significantly larger memory footprint.
Or do modern x64 processors simply run 64-bit binaries faster than 32-bit binaries?
Running in "long mode" (64 bits) has many advantages over "legacy" (32 bits) mode, even if you haven't hit the 4GB memory limit (which was only a problem in lousy OS's like Windows - PAE let Linux break that barrier long ago. It's an artificial limit anyway, thank MS for that).
64 bit registers, a greater number of registers, and I believe a lot of the newer extension sets only function when you are in long mode. So really, the only downside is wasting a bit of space, but the gains are otherwise quite large and I'd say worth it.
Just got Mint installed yesterday. Dual boot with Win 8.1. Now just need to figure out how it works lol. It did have the necessary drivers to run my two monitors. Which was good seeing as how I couldn't figure out how to install the AMD drivers. Doing day to day stuff that most people need to do was easy.
How did you manege that? I tried doing that and something failed on 8 and I lost everything. Good thing I made a recovery disc first!
Originally Posted By: LazyPrizm
Running in "long mode" (64 bits) has many advantages over "legacy" (32 bits) mode, even if you haven't hit the 4GB memory limit (which was only a problem in lousy OS's like Windows - PAE let Linux break that barrier long ago. It's an artificial limit anyway, thank MS for that).
64 bit registers, a greater number of registers, and I believe a lot of the newer extension sets only function when you are in long mode. So really, the only downside is wasting a bit of space, but the gains are otherwise quite large and I'd say worth it.
Thank you for the explanation. I was aware of PAE, both Linux and Microsoft have long supported it, but as you wrote, MS limited memory addressing in Windows for $$ licensing reasons.
I understand how larger and more registers can make a significant difference if the compilers that produce the binaries optimize to take full advantage, and it makes sense that newer instructions would only be available in non-legacy mode.
Running in "long mode" (64 bits) has many advantages over "legacy" (32 bits) mode, even if you haven't hit the 4GB memory limit (which was only a problem in lousy OS's like Windows - PAE let Linux break that barrier long ago. It's an artificial limit anyway, thank MS for that).
64 bit registers, a greater number of registers, and I believe a lot of the newer extension sets only function when you are in long mode. So really, the only downside is wasting a bit of space, but the gains are otherwise quite large and I'd say worth it.
Thank you for the explanation. I was aware of PAE, both Linux and Microsoft have long supported it, but as you wrote, MS limited memory addressing in Windows for $$ licensing reasons.
I understand how larger and more registers can make a significant difference if the compilers that produce the binaries optimize to take full advantage, and it makes sense that newer instructions would only be available in non-legacy mode.
Finally made the jump to Linux on my 6 1/2 year old Dell Laptop. Windows 7 works fine, dual partition with Mint 16 with an SSD. Gotta have an SSD! The wlan drivers installed and are working fine.
What I need but isn't working is an RDP client to connect to Windows 8.1 machines. Gnome-rdp and xrdp don't work at all to Win8.1 clients, the one here in my LAN.
Any suggestions for a better RDP client?
What I need but isn't working is an RDP client to connect to Windows 8.1 machines. Gnome-rdp and xrdp don't work at all to Win8.1 clients, the one here in my LAN.
Any suggestions for a better RDP client?
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Any suggestions for a better RDP client?
I am pretty sure that Remmina is the default for most Gnome-based installs, including Ubuntu. I don't know if the Mint developers chose something else.
http://remmina.sourceforge.net/
Any suggestions for a better RDP client?
I am pretty sure that Remmina is the default for most Gnome-based installs, including Ubuntu. I don't know if the Mint developers chose something else.
http://remmina.sourceforge.net/
- Status
