Well, I recently got a new computer from a computer refurbishing class in my school, and I have Windows XP on one partition, Ubuntu on another, and I have a third partition with about 8 GB of space for what I intend to be a third OS, however, my plans of using Fedora have failed due to an issue with Fedora and my computer's graphics, which I am too newbish with Linux to fix, so I'm wondering if there's any other OSs, or distros of Linux that you guys think I should put on there.

I'm open to suggestions, but please support it a bit

I recommend Arch Linux. More info:
The Arch Way
Arch Compared To Other Distros
FAQ
Beginner's Guide
Official Arch Linux Install Guide

Unlike Ubuntu, Arch starts off in multi-user mode at the command-line by default, but you can configure just about any DE or WM you want (it involves stuff such as installing Xorg, GNOME/KDE, etc.) and add in a graphical login of your choice (e.g., gdm and changing your run level from 3 to 5 in Inittab.). It requires more technical skill to use than Ubuntu, but I believe you can manage your way around the hurdles.

What graphics unit are you using? (Using ATI as an example) I managed to get my ATI card working with the latest xorg using the xf86-video-ati package (AMD decided to move my card to "Legacy Driver" support status), but at the cost of 3D acceleration (though there's always downgrading xorg and installing catalyst/fglrx if 3D acceleration is absolutely necessary).

So falk. Are you a developer?

CentOS 5
So maybe you will learn something that would help SEN in the future.

Looks pretty interesting, and I am intending to get a slightly less simple type of Linux on this last partition, so I can get into more advanced stuff than Ubuntu allows, however, I'm not sure if I know enough yet to pull it off, I honestly just have no idea how to truly customize Linux at this point, so I need to find a way to be able to learn more..


Once again, I honestly am not sure what that entails


I was actually thinking about that, since a server that I have right now runs on that OS as well, but this computer may not be connected to the internet all the time, so having a distro basically built for a server seems like a waste.. EDIT: Give me some more reason to do it and I probably will

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 23 2009, 12:07 am by Falkoner.

They named it after me.

I just came here to say that. Though, when I was looking for a Linux installation, I was going to go with Suse (or OpenSuse).

Yeah, I was looking at OpenSuse, what are the advantages of it though? Anyone here have any experience with it?

I'm currently torrenting CentOS, if it installs with no difficulties I'll stick with it, at this point I just want one that I can install now and then mess with later, if it doesn't work I'm going to try OpenSuse, then Arch.

Oh, and about my graphic issues with Fedora, apparently I don't have it set correctly, and I could fix it with an editor(I think the name was Vim or something), but I didn't understand what they meant when explaining to someone else..

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 23 2009, 12:59 am by Falkoner.

CentOS worked fine, although the graphics were 800x600 at best, however, I had issues with my boot manager, and I'm not even sure if I would use it, so I decided to just have Ubuntu for now, and maybe once I figure out Linux a bit more I'll be able to pick an OS that really suits my needs.

Thanks, all.

I still think Windows 3.1 would have been better. ;o

Windows 3.1 isn't exactly an OS. It is a program you run from DOS.

Let him deal with the technicalities

Why would you run Linux twice?

Just get Solaris.

So I can run Unix twice?

Linux is not UNIX.

No, but linux is based off unix, as is solaris.


I've had a windows 3 comp and it was very...interesting, in a seeing-a-90-yearold naked kind of way. Lets just say that if anything, i prefer dos.

From a design standpoint, some of the utilities in GNU/Linux are based on Unix utilities, but no code is used from Unix. (it was meant to be an open source alternative) IIRC, Solaris is actually based on some kind of Unix code.

This.

All they did was import the kernel to a different language, they both have the same basic underlying code, which is Unix. Saying Linux didn't copy Unix is like saying someone didn't cheat off you in a computer class because they retyped the code themselves, rather than just hitting copy and paste.

Linux, which refers to the kernel, has nothing to do with Unix. It was made from scratch by Linus Torvalds. The main tool-set, underlying software, and API for GNU/Linux are from GNU, which is also why you should say GNU in front of the name, and not just say Linux since Linux is only the kernel and it is possible to use a different kernel. In fact, Debian has a distribution of GNU/FreeBSD (experimental, IIRC), which uses the same underlying GNU system but uses the FreeBSD kernel. In this case, it would be completely improper to call it Linux, even if it does have all of the same APIs and software, other than the kernel, because of the fact that Linux is only a kernel and that particular OS wouldn't be using Linux.

GNU was intended to be a "free software" alternative to the proprietary Unix system (free having to do with freedom, not price). GNU didn't copy Unix code, because for one thing, the license is incompatible. It would also be illegal because they don't own the copyright to the Unix code nor would they have had permission to use it. What you are suggesting, Falkoner, would be the same kind of illegality as if there had been a widely used OS that used as its base the Windows source code that got leaked a while ago. It would get shut down by the copyright holder (in the example, Microsoft) as soon as possible. The same would happen to GNU if they had used some Unix code. There was actually a lawsuit from SCO, IIRC, accusing of such a while ago. I think it was determined that the claims were false and that the case was thrown out.

Don't make accusations when you know nothing about the history.

Btw, GNU/Linux does make use of code from some of the BSD systems, which are a type of Unix but not what you would be referring to when just saying Unix. To make the legal standing of it even more clear, at some point many years ago they replaced all of the Unix code in BSD. The various BSD systems are under licenses that are about the least restrictive software licenses in existence, other than just declaring something public domain. That code is allowed to be used in GNU/Linux for sure. Windows actually uses some code from there, too. Mac OS X also took some code from there. Basically the code from those BSD systems can be used with free software or proprietary systems almost as if it was their own.

On that note, if you don't exactly want to have another GNU/Linux for your third partition, you could try something like FreeBSD or OpenBSD. You may or may not really see much difference in what software is available for it, though. Since they use different drivers, the level of driver support is different between BSD and Linux (in this case it is proper to say just Linux, since I'm talking about the kernel). There are also various aspects of performance that are different. I haven't actually tried installing either of those on a regular computer yet, though. I do have a FreeBSD distro on my router.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on May 26 2009, 7:04 am by ShadowFlare.

Mmmkay, thanks for explaining it, I've just always heard that from a guy I know who works on Unix systems.

I was actually considering putting Mac on there, but I can't find a decent pirated version.. Oh, I also found out yesterday that Windows can be activated incredibly easily, without a product key, the activation by phone is basically a trust system, whether or not you feel bad lying to a robot, it's horrible