LiveCode Forums.

To linux or not to linux?

On and off over the years i've been toying with the idea of running some flavour of linux and have installed a few times.
There are a number of reasons why i haven't stuck with it:

• I've not found a distro that is truly end-user ready. There seems to always a lot of finicking required to get things to work
• This is probably due the fact that i lack a significant knowledge base in the how the innards of linux work
• Both of the above require a significant time commitment to overcome, which as a busy non-IT professional I just don't have
• While this is a huge number of apps available (and actually many apps in my non-IT field that's aren't available mainstream), not many apps are directly and fully compatible with mainstream counterparts
• Being largely open source, many apps lack the polish of mainstream OS apps
• Yes OK, i'm very superficial and looks matter as well as function; but also usability stems may times directly from this
• All of he above and more translate into a lot of work for seemingly little benefit over, say, using my mac

Recent discussions on the forum have sparked that curiosity though - is there a distro now that can be considered non-Linux-specialist ready? (i know there are mockups for mac/win OS's and you can run WINE etc for apps, but ultimately difficult to run these systems effectively without learning a lot of command line... which i'd avoid given lack of time...)

As my father (who died 3 years ago at 86) managed perfectly well with Xubuntu (straight 'out of the box') for 12 years
I cannot understand what "all the fuss" is about.

I have been using Linux distros on many machines for 18 years, and finally settled down with Xubuntu because
it is NOT resource hungry, looks like Windows XP (i.e. simplistic WIMP interface), and runs some many open source
equivalents I don't have to get my knickers in a twist about running Windows stuff via WINE.

Heh, I'd say it depends on what kind of computer type person you are, more than your bullet point list.

For a point of reference, I started with computers when CLI only OSes were all you had, so I don't find typing a command to be all that hard or scary, but I think that would *not* be the real problem when switching OSes, the *real* problem always seems to be "Doing x in OS y doesn't work the same as doing z in the OS I was just in! To me, that just makes OS y completely retarded !@!"

However, if you really want to explore nix distros without pressure and see how they suite you, I'd suggest downloading and installing a Virtual Machine package, such as Virtualbox (free, and completely cross platform on desktops) or VMWare (player is free, and can create machines), and then download and play with a live cd from whatever distro you are considering.

Some benefits of this method:

1. Both of the aforementioned VM software can suspend the environment you have going, so it isn't like you are starting from scratch each time.
2. If something happens to screw up the machine, you can just restart the machine and it is brand new.
3. No hardware cost for trying something out.
4. Can be used while working at your primary system, and while you are doing other things ON your primary system.

As to your bullet points, heh, I'd say this about that -

I've not found a distro that is truly end-user ready. There seems to always a lot of finicking required to get things to work

I've found that in every operating system, including Macs. The only difference (to most end users) is what your trying to accomplish, and how much of that is allowed by default on the OS your using without having to "finick" it.

This is probably due the fact that i lack a significant knowledge base in the how the innards of linux work

Probably not, OSes, as a rule, all work fairly similarly, even at the CLI level.

Both of the above require a significant time commitment to overcome, which as a busy non-IT professional I just don't have

Well, if you don't have the time, why even bother with the question? Not to sound harsh, but if you have something that works for you, stay on that. Lots of people get real world work done on their OS of choice, you don't get brownie points for switching to a lesser used OS.

While this is a huge number of apps available (and actually many apps in my non-IT field that's aren't available mainstream), not many apps are directly and fully compatible with mainstream counterparts

I find that is true no matter which OS your on, even Windows itself, which is how most "mainstream" apps became mainstream in the first place.

Being largely open source, many apps lack the polish of mainstream OS apps

Being open source has nothing to do with 'polish', however I will grant you that not many coders make good ux designers, and a small team of software dev's (or a single person team) is less likely to put out software that is what you might consider 'polished' than a large team. However, UNLIKE proprietary software, YOU can change the look and even the functionality of Open source software, so polish it however you want

Yes OK, i'm very superficial and looks matter as well as function; but also usability stems may times directly from this

From what? From looks ? For what it is worth, there are plenty of good looking 'nix desktops, and you can make almost any 'nix distro look like anything you want. If that is your thing, knock yourself out.

All of he above and more translate into a lot of work for seemingly little benefit over, say, using my mac

If you like living in a condo, live in a condo. I like owning the house, that is why I live in a house. To me, Mac's heyday was back during os7. Windows heyday was NT4. I switched from those to 'nix for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is I can do what I want to using it and make it my own, and not feel like Redmond or Cupertino is telling me the limits or, worse yet, watching whatever I do.

And finally,

... [1] is there a distro now that can be considered non-Linux-specialist ready?
[2] (i know there are mockups for mac/win OS's and you can run WINE etc for apps, but ultimately difficult to run these systems effectively
[3]without learning a lot of command line... which i'd avoid given lack of time...)

1.) Tons.
2.) I'd skip anything like that, myself, I don't consider either of those to be the epitome of a desktop experience.
3.) I can't remember the last time I *had* to use the CLI in any major desktop distro. This is not the same as saying I never use the CLI, I use it all the time, but these days, it is not the only way to get something done (but it is often faster and more precise).

Hope any (or all) of the above helps you in some way.

Thanks both

I had played around more recently with a chromebook and set it to dual-boot to a linux distro tailored for chromebooks (Gallium OS); although that worked fine, I just didn't see the point of the (lots of) extra work required, and simple things like trying to figure out where i'm supposed to say stuff continue to be a slight mystery. Also, why would i have to make apps executable to run them etc. Plus this being a chromebook with limited hard drive space, I count't see a simple way to run this off an external drive etc.
In short, the experiment didn't last long...

As you say, different way of working, but for me being familiar with mainstream OS's there were too many new things to learn just to make the basics work (and time is a resource i don't have an abundance of)...

I do like Bog's suggestion of using VirtualBox to explore options though, will give that a go (at some point anyway )
I presume i should be able to this off an external drive?

PS: @bogs: System 7 was the heyday of Mac interface design, but worst OS ever, i would not call that it the heyday of MacOS myself! Do you remember RAM fragmentation lol? Give me System 6 (even without colour and multitasking) any day
I remember the days where you could just hit the interrupt button on the back of the mac and it would drop you into the debugger directly to view/edit assembly directly in MacsBug. Fun times
I did have the privilege of briefly playing with a NeXT Cube (sale of these was restricted to the US, so no one really knew about those in Europe) - now THAT was the heyday of 'mac' computing, even though it was never a Mac. Very sci-fi experience at the time...

and interestingly on reminiscing and searching online some images of the unix-based NeXTSTEP OS, it looks remarkably like a lot of linux distros i've seen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NeXTSTEP_desktop.png for example) even though it was released 3 years before the first official release of Linux in 1991...

Well, there is actually a desktop for 'nix based on NeXT, it is called 'window maker'. Works well with GnuStep, which offers a really nice programming environment.

System 6-9 all went well for me, but not well enough for me to stay with Apple (at the time, I had to access Win specific software and api's), so my time with Apple was more in the nature of a hobby.

If your familiar with "main stream" OSes, treat your experiments with 'nix the same way, don't over complicate the whole thing, and you'll find there aren't that many differences. Even less so going from OSX to 'nix, as most of the commands in the CLI are pretty equivalent.

why would i have to make apps executable to run them...

That would depend more on 1.) how the app is made and 2.) where it was made (your machine vs. another machine. )

'nix is very permissions oriented, so it only makes sense you'd have to enable a program to run on it, but that isn't much different than my experience on Mac or, more recently, Win.

There isn't as much difference as you think, btw, I made a mac app in Lc on a mac machine, and I still had to make it executable before I could run it on the same machine!@ To me, that just seems insane, and it prompted this thread, and this thread reply (about here).

To sum it up, using GODOT I was able to make universal exe's that just ran after ok'ing a scary dialog from 'nix to mac / 'nix to win / nix to nix etc., but not in Lc from nix to mac without a lot of jim-crackery.

Thanks for the insights Bogs... not disputing that in essence the OS's are similar, but for the uninitiated there are huge variances in usability - much of the complexities are hidden in MacOS for example, but that also makes it more useable to those who don't know how to wield the intricacies of the OS (basically you can pick it up and go with no further input, the same cannot really be said of linux distros - at least not if you want to do more than use a browser).

In my example it's not that i tried to code an app for linux and it wouldn't execute on MacOS. I literally just downloaded an installer for linux (i think it was Android Studio) and how to go through hoops to make it run as an executable app to install Android studio (on Gallium OS).

Even then, i couldn't install it where i though it should be installed and had to install to some subfolder of my home folder, which seemed odd and counterintuitive (obviously i'm lacking the knowledge to do this properly, but this underlines my point).

The OS's are similar but the interfaces are not - and it takes a lot of time, effort and money to create a good interface that can cater to the uninitiated (ie manage the complexity in a hidden fashion), so of course there will be variances... I'll have a play around with the the various suggestions here on virtualBox when i get time.

PS: Presumably the godot app wasn't an LC app? or is there a way to use the godot engine in LC?

After reading your reply, I'm not so sure my reply was as clear as it could be, so I'll try to rephrase it a bit.

stam wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:10 pm

...but for the uninitiated there are huge variances in usability

That statement would apply equally to any of the 3 major desktop OSes. If you were used to Windows, and tried to jump on a Mac, you would be lost just doing little things that are easy to do on Windows (once, of course, you are used to doing them on windows).

The "uninitiated" part is moot, no OS is particularly harder to learn than another, and they all *literally* work the same way for the most part.

- much of the complexities are hidden in MacOS for example, but that also makes it more useable to those who don't know how to wield the intricacies of the OS (basically you can pick it up and go with no further input, the same cannot really be said of linux distros - at least not if you want to do more than use a browser).

Are you chuckling over there? Surely you can't be serious. My mother, who was WELL into her 70s learned to use 'nix with no issue whatsoever after having been on Windows from 3.1 to XP. She was hardly a computer wizard, but she sure as hell did more than browse the web heh. After several decades of windows, when I switched her system over to 'nix, she said -

bog's mother wrote: I want to thank you soooo much for installing linux for me, it is so much easier to use than Windows was and I have so many less problems with it!

Funny thing about that story, it came about after I wrote her a program to keep track of her mileage and she was still using Windows. Jacque I'm sure will relate to this, I sent it as a .zip file and she kept running it from inside the .zip file Man I miss her, but that is neither here nor there.

I became *used* to OS7 to 9, but the first 6 months I was far less productive in it than in DOS. When Win shell came along, I was far less productive than when in DOS as well. When I first switched to 'nix and BSD, I was far more productive in those than the two OSes I just mentioned because they were (ready?) at the time a LOT like DOS.

Basically what I'm trying to tell you is that your perception that OSx is different than OSy is just that, a perception. It is like trying to tell someone how to build a computer system. When I met my wife, she was living 3000 miles away and was hardly computer literate. I told her how to install ram, upgrade her MB, put in a cpu, connect peripherals, etc. The whole time, she kept telling me "it is too difficult, too scary, too blah blah blah...." when we were finished, she had a new system basically, because really none of it is any harder than plugging in a lamp.

stam wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:10 pm

I literally just downloaded an installer for linux (i think it was Android Studio) and how to go through hoops to make it run as an executable app to install Android studio (on Gallium OS).

Right clicking on something, going to "permissions" tab in properties, and checking "allow execution" is jumping through hoops? Or do you mean something else? I've only ever installed android studio once, I promptly got rid of it, so my memory about it is a little foggy. I've also never tried Gallium, I'll go look it up.

stam wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:10 pm

Even then, i couldn't install it where i though it should be installed and had to install to some subfolder of my home folder, which seemed odd and counterintuitive (obviously i'm lacking the knowledge to do this properly, but this underlines my point).

Well, I'm sure that downloading an image file, and dragging it into an applications folder must seem completely normal to you, but it sure wasn't to me the first time I saw it. See what I said about what your used too.

and it takes a lot of time, effort and money to create a good interface that can cater to the uninitiated (ie manage the complexity in a hidden fashion), so of course there will be variances... I'll have a play around with the the various suggestions here on virtualBox when i get time

I really think your making it harder for yourself than it is, just my point of view, but of course that isn't going to help you.

If you decide you need help, about something fairly specific, even though it isn't Lc related, just ask. Quite a few here use 'nix as their sole systems, I'm pretty sure one of us would have an answer ( I sure don't have all of them, and I have funny ideas about things to boot).

Good luck.

As a side note, you may have seen my comments about Q4OS in a couple of other threads. One of the unique things about it is you can setup KDE 3 & 4 to run as a dual boot on the same VM, but, I would say try 3 first (The TDE desktop). See what you think about that setup, when you have the time.

We still have a couple of osx machines around, but I've been perfectly happy on linux for several years now. Jumped ship from Win$ when they tried to make us use that Ribbon thing. I do spend quite a bit of time with the command line, but I'm most comfortable there anyway. And it's such a joy getting away from the automatic updates when you're trying to reboot or shut down your machine. And the registry. And the security problems. And...

There are still some programs that I run on osx because there aren't linux equivalents (some steam games, etc) but I can say that nobody I've introduced to linux has ever gone back to what they had before.

Thank you all - I understand you're all users of linux distros for many years and swear by them. I was not trying to start a pissing contest about which OS is best...

The question was about usability because following a clear/official recipe for installation and use (galliumOS for chromebook) resulted in a system that while quite useable for common/defualt tasks, anything deeper needed significant knowledge which my 30+ years of use of mac/win systems did not furnish me with. And while yes, i could eventually learn, i don't really have time to do this and wondered if there are distros that will be more approachable for non-linux users.

The specific question of my OP was if there was a distro that you would recommend for people new to linux. Inherently this means people used to mac/win. When i say i found many aspects of the OS impenetrable, i'm not being facetious. I understand what it means and that it can be be overcome, the question is how i could avoid that effort if possible.

Instead my question (with explanatory comments as to why i was posting this) seems to have sparked a lot of strongly defensive responses.

Literally 2 lines of all the text the text posted suggest actual distros. Thanks for the suggestion on Q4OS/TDE @bogs, at some point i'll look at testing these on a virtual server. if there is a 'better' distro for new linux users, please let me know...

---------------------------
EDIT: I should mention that i have looked for this answer online and commonest recommendations seem to be Ubuntu, Mint, ElementaryOS and ZorinOS. But was hoping to get views of LC users as well.

Stam, my posts are not meant to be taken as defensive, if they are coming off that way, you have my apologies. I am most certainly not trying to start a pissing contest, in my first response you might remember I said -

bogs wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:44 am

...if you have something that works for you, stay on that. Lots of people get real world work done on their OS of choice...

I didn't mean anything nasty by that, I mean if OSX works for you, stick with it. In the rest of my post(s), I am merely pointing out that most of what you said simply isn't so today as far as using 'nix goes.

You tried an offbeat distro designed to be dualbooted on a chromebook (or run from inside Chrome itself). This is not what I'd consider a good test run for 'nix, and considering how limited the storage is on a chromebook, if anything, I'd scrap the chrome os completely or stick a larger drive in it.

The main problem after that point is likely to be the cpu, unless your chromebook was a higher end unit with an i3 in it, then your likely running a celeron.

The specific question of my OP was if there was a distro that you would recommend for people new to linux.
-
i have looked for this answer online and commonest recommendations seem to be Ubuntu, Mint, ElementaryOS and ZorinOS.

Ubuntu comes up in these searches a lot. Mint is Ubuntu with an in house desktop (Cinnamon). Elementary is Ubuntu made to look like a mac. Zorin is based on Ubuntu. Seeing a theme here?

Ubuntu and Mint are extremely similar, the other distros are more or less similar to those. The reason Ubuntu comes up so much is that as Richard pointed out somewhere else, the installer is very easy to run (as long as you have some basic knowledge of how your own computer works), and there is a LOT of information about how to solve particular issues since there are a lot of users in the base.

Ubuntu, btw, is based on a much older distro, Debian. In the 'nix world, there are 3 main distros / packaging systems and one that is found more often in BSD.
Debian, and Debian based distros, use dpkg/apt*
Fedora, Suse, and some others use rpm/yum
BSD's and a few 'nixs use pacman
and lastly, there are a few (like Gentoo) that use Portage.

Gentoo is an unusual distro in that you build it from source. I don't think that is beginner friendly right off the bat, but certainly it does no harm to look at it.

No matter what distro you eventually look at, you are going to have to know some things about your hardware, in particular your hard drive. Installing into a VM eliminates your need to know about that, since you are installing 'nix all by itself, and all the installers of all the versions I mentioned have an automatic setting that works pretty good for a default.

When looking at various distros, your also going to see things like "light weight" describing a particular distro. Keep in mind that (usually) applies in comparison to the parent distro (usually). In other words, Xubuntu is considered light weight compared to full original Ubuntu.

Myself, I think all of the 'buntu's are bloated and heavy as heck, the only way your going to get a fast system from those are if your hardware is fast already, or if you install it as a minimal server and add the desktop components yourself, which although it isn't rocket science, it is not something again that I would recommend for a beginner.

Almost all of the rest of the 'nix experience is going to boil down to your personal taste in desktop environments, which unlike OSX and Windows come in at least 5 major flavors and, the last time I counted, was upwards of 20 or more to choose from.

Keep in mind that quite a few of the esoteric desktop environments look quite lovely, some are utilitarian, and some are just plain weird. Taste is to the beholder, but it is an attractive feature you won't find almost anywhere else.

If you wind up on a Debian / Ubuntu based distro (like the above or as I mentioned, Q4OS), you can install packages using the CLI (apt or dpkg) or you can use a GUI package manager like Synaptic. Some distros use that by default, or they have a way to install it that is fairly easy. In Q4OS for instance, you can install that, a browser, etc. from a welcome screen or just pick a full installation in the desktop profiler and you'll wind up with their default recommendations.

That way is a little heavy for my tastes, I usually go with a core system no matter the distro and choose what I want on it, but, for someone just starting it is a viable option.

I hope that reply is of more help to you than my previous ones were, good luck with it.

Hope mine didn't come off as defensive as well.
Just wanted to warn you that linux may well require more diving into the terminal than other operating systems.
LiveCode works well on Ubuntu, so I'd start with that and see what you think.
I've settled on linux Mint (which has a Ubuntu base) with a cinnamon desktop manager. Does the job for me.

Cheers.

I think all of the 'buntu's are bloated and heavy as heck

There's a thought.

Here, at my work, I have a Pentium IV running Xubuntu 32-bit 18.04.3
with 256 KB RAM trotting along very comfortably indeed.

What I have found out is that Ubuntu (as in 'Ubuntu', the flagship version) is heavy and clunky,
that is why I use Xubuntu (and in a few cases, such as a 20 year old laptop, LXDE) which has all
the stability (which I know bores Mark W; but I am using Xubuntu for relatively humdrum things)
of Ubuntu without the clunky, chunky "Hong-Kong Phooey" of a window manager and so on, but
XFCE, which is considerably lighter, and for simple people like me offers a WIMP interface
that looks like Windows XP rather than the Ubuntu "frontage" that throws a lot of small children
(including myself) "off."

I should like to point out that when I first started experimenting with Linux 18 years ago I ran through
a whole slew of distros (and, occasionally, mess around with stuff now), and it took me 3 years until I settled down with
Xubuntu.

Mind you after "Lindows" anything would seem good.
- My only criticism of Xubuntu is that both my wife's laptop and one of mine that share the same specifications
(2 year old ASUS machines with 6 GB RAM) take about 8 minutes to boot up: which does seem bizarrely long.

I really only use the CLI for updating and the odd build-from-source-code adventure.

I own 2 BBC Micros (one from 1981 and the other from 1986) with lovely black screens (boot up in 10 seconds)
that give me all the "blind terminal" experience I can handle without "getting all kinky" with modern operating
systems that have those things called Graphic User Interfaces.

My Devawriter Pro 'thang' has been tossed back and forth between Macintosh boxes and Xubuntu boxes over the 10 years
of its ongoing development, and apart from LC 9.6.x screwing up PNG images on MacOS 11.5 beta at the moment, I have
never experienced any obvious downsides re using LC on either family of operating systems.

Thanks all - nice to see such passion about OSs

If i do run go ahead with this it will likely be on acceptable hardware (I've got a couple of core2duo intel macs kicking about, but which can't be upgraded to the latest MacOS due to age) - 16Gb RAM and with mechanical drives replaced by flash drives, speed will likely be significantly higher than pentium pc.

I'll see where that gets me (when i have time) and may have to reach out for help

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:36 am

I should like to point out that when I first started experimenting with Linux 18 years ago I ran through
a whole slew of distros (and, occasionally, mess around with stuff now), and it took me 3 years until I settled down with
Xubuntu.

I have a few distros I play with regularly...


And I did test Lindows back in the day (still have the disc for it) but boy was that pointless and limited.

take about 8 minutes to boot up:

That is bizarrely long, even for full buntu.