Linix

[X-Cannon]

Linux looks cool but where can I buy it or do you just download it? and is there a lot of code to write because I've seen people do normal things like install something and had to write up code for some unknown reason. Also is it difficult to understand I mean is it like Windows or totally different and does it crash a lot like windows or is it crash free like the Mac's?

THX for your help

P.S. I posted it here because a lot of people read windows support (wonder why)

[Matt]

Try these places for info and downloads:

http://www.linuxiso.org/

http://www.linux.org/

http://www.suse.com/us/

http://www.redhat.com/

Linux Information Sheet

[TheLetterK]

Linux looks cool but where can I buy it or do you just download it? and is there a lot of code to write because I've seen people do normal things like install something and had to write up code for some unknown reason. Also is it difficult to understand I mean is it like Windows or totally different and does it crash a lot like windows or is it crash free like the Mac's?

THX for your help

P.S. I posted it here because a lot of people read windows support (wonder why)

You can buy distros from any of the various vendors if you'd like to support that distro and the community in general (Examples of some distributions; Fedora, Mandrake, SuSE, Linspire, Lycoris, etc. Google for their home pages if you want to buy.). Most people simply download a copy (almost all distributions have the distribution available for free, legally).

What you was were probably people using the Command-Line Interface (hereafter referred to as 'CLI'). While the shell (err, command prompt in Windows-speak) is both a user interface and a scripting language, it's not really programming as most people would consider it. This is really one of the biggest misconceptions about Linux distros. Many moons ago, the only way to install software on a Linux box was to compile it yourself; hence the 'standard gnu install' came about. It's extremely simple.

Step 1: Unpack the compressed archive ('unzip' it in Windows-speak). Assuming the name of the file is candle-5.6-dev.tar.gz you would do a: tar -xzf candle-5.6-dev.tar.gz. This will unpack the archive into a directory called candle-5.6-dev.

Step 2: cd candle-5.6-dev. cd is the 'change directory' command, used for moving about through the filesystem (err, changing folders in Windows-speak). This will put you in the candle-5.6-dev directory.

Step 3: Read the README file contained in this directory (should one exist). Also read INSTALL (if it exists). Not all apps have a README and/or INSTALL file, but the vast majority do. Follow the installation instructions contained within.

Now, assuming they follow the standard gnu install:

Step 4: ./configure. This builds a Makefile (you really don't need to know about that at the moment. Suffice to say that one is needed. Occasionally they are provided, or require you to manually edit them but that is fairly rare).

Step 5: make. This starts compiling the package (too difficult for me to explain such that you would understand if you do not already know what it means). In other words, it's 'making the application'.

Step 6: sudo make install. This 'installs' the newly built application. It requires superuser privileges (superuser is called 'root'), which is why you use sudo (sudo is a command that grants a process temporary superuser privileges, it will prompt you for your root password).

That little tutorial does not take into account dependencies. These are applications or libraries (usually libraries) that need to be installed before you can install the application you wanted. There are reasons for this beyond the scope of this forum thread. This can cause what is known as 'dependency hell', where you can spend a very long time solving dependencies. As such, advanced package management systems such as apt, urpmi, YaST, and portage arose. These make package installation much easier than it is on Windows. Rather than hunting around the web searching for an installer, you simply (assuming you wanted to install 'candle 5.6' again, using apt as an example) type: apt-get install candle. Not all distributions have an advanced package management utility, but one can usually be installed (that can be somewhat tricky though). Of the advanced package management utilities, apt is the most common and most supported. It's the package management utility for Debian and Debian-based distributions. There's a fork (err... offshoot) called apt4rpm that allows you to install it on distros like Redhat, Mandrake, or SuSE (Which are known as rpm distros because they use a package format called rpm).

Is it difficult? No. Is it different? Yes. It is not Windows, and distros usually do not attempt to BE Windows. The perceived difficulty comes from having to learn to do things 'the linux way' rather than the 'one microsoft way'. This typically manifests itself as having the system ask the user a lot of question, and it expecting the appropriate answer. This is why people say that 99% of all Linux problems come from a user screwup somewhere along the way. Keep in mind however that most Linux desktop users use a GUI (there are many for Linux). These can range from incredibly simplistic (blackbox or fvwm) to incredibly complex works of art (highly modified KDE, xfce, or GNOME desktops). And they're all almost completely customizable.

Linux is well known for it's stability and robustness. It's not as stable as *BSD in most situations, nor is it as stable as OS X (which is a very stable OS in itself, but also run on very closed hardware which allows for extensive testing--before anyone comments, OS X is not a BSD.). But we're talking about the difference between a 1 year uptime and a year and a half.

[jcl]

Now, assuming they follow the standard gnu install:

        Step 4: ./configure. This builds a Makefile (you really don't need to know about that at the moment. Suffice to say that one is needed. Occasionally they are provided, or require you to manually edit them but that is fairly rare).

        Step 5: make. This starts compiling the package (too difficult for me to explain such that you would understand if you do not already know what it means). In other words, it's 'making the application'.

        Step 6: sudo make install. This 'installs' the newly built application. It requires superuser privileges (superuser is called 'root'), which is why you use sudo (sudo is a command that grants a process temporary superuser privileges, it will prompt you for your root password).

FWIW, I recommend that people not follow this part of the standard procedure. It almost invariable causes the files to scattered around /usr/local/, making manual deinstallation extremely difficult. Instead, I recommend using the --path option for the configure script, like so

$ ./configure --path=$DIR

where $DIR is the directory into which you want to install the files. If you create a new directory for each package, e.g., "/opt/emacs-21.3.1" for Emacs version 21.3.1, you can deinstall by simply deleting the directory. This also allows you maintain multiple versions of the same package (by installing them into different directories) and removes the need for superuser privileges for installations (you can install into a private directory or a public directory to which you have write-access).

This method does require a bit of additional work to integrate installed software into the system, but it's not difficult and is probably worth doing at least once as a learning experience.

These can range from incredibly simplistic (blackbox or fvwm) to incredibly complex works of art (highly modified KDE, xfce, or GNOME desktops).

This is the first time I've seen FVWM described as simple :-)

It's not as stable as *BSD in most situations, nor is it as stable as OS X

But OS X is--

before anyone comments, OS X is not a BSD

--a BSD. Oops.

(By the way, this is something else you have to learn in order to use Linux. Every time you say anything, some smart-ass will appear out of nowhere and disagree with you for no reason. If you said the sky is blue someone would show up and tell that it is, in fact, orange, and that you need to switch to Debian. (And if you really did say the sky is blue, that smart-ass would probably be me, since the sky really isn't blue. But I digress.) The Linux community is powered by torment.)

[TheLetterK]

Now, assuming they follow the standard gnu install:

        Step 4: ./configure. This builds a Makefile (you really don't need to know about that at the moment. Suffice to say that one is needed. Occasionally they are provided, or require you to manually edit them but that is fairly rare).

        Step 5: make. This starts compiling the package (too difficult for me to explain such that you would understand if you do not already know what it means). In other words, it's 'making the application'.

        Step 6: sudo make install. This 'installs' the newly built application. It requires superuser privileges (superuser is called 'root'), which is why you use sudo (sudo is a command that grants a process temporary superuser privileges, it will prompt you for your root password).

FWIW, I recommend that people not follow this part of the standard procedure. It almost invariable causes the files to scattered around /usr/local/, making manual deinstallation extremely difficult. Instead, I recommend using the --path option for the configure script, like so

$ ./configure --path=$DIR

where $DIR is the directory into which you want to install the files. If you create a new directory for each package, e.g., "/opt/emacs-21.3.1" for Emacs version 21.3.1, you can deinstall by simply deleting the directory. This also allows you maintain multiple versions of the same package (by installing them into different directories) and removes the need for superuser privileges for installations (you can install into a private directory or a public directory to which you have write-access).

This method does require a bit of additional work to integrate installed software into the system, but it's not difficult and is probably worth doing at least once as a learning experience.

These can range from incredibly simplistic (blackbox or fvwm) to incredibly complex works of art (highly modified KDE, xfce, or GNOME desktops).

This is the first time I've seen FVWM described as simple :-)

It's not as stable as *BSD in most situations, nor is it as stable as OS X

But OS X is--

before anyone comments, OS X is not a BSD

--a BSD. Oops.

(By the way, this is something else you have to learn in order to use Linux. Every time you say anything, some smart-ass will appear out of nowhere and disagree with you for no reason. If you said the sky is blue someone would show up and tell that it is, in fact, orange, and that you need to switch to Debian. (And if you really did say the sky is blue, that smart-ass would probably be me, since the sky really isn't blue. But I digress.) The Linux community is powered by torment.)

I didn't say that was the best method of installing software; just describing the 'standard' source install procedure. PErsonally, I'd recommend using a package manager.

It's not easy to use, but it is a rather simple interface.

Os X is not a BSD. That would require them to use BSD as the kernel--Os X uses xnu/mach.

[Nerelda]

The reason the Windows thread is read more is because more people know enough about it than Linux. I still se several people going into the Linux threads and answering questions there.

[jcl]

I didn't say that was the best method of installing software; just describing the 'standard' source install procedure. PErsonally, I'd recommend using a package manager.

I know. Like I said, some smart-ass will show up and disagree for no reason. I drew Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Os X is not a BSD. That would require them to use BSD as the kernel--Os X uses xnu/mach.

You've been spending too much time in Linux. BSD has never attached that much importance to the kernel. It's an crucial component of the system, but it's still just one component. Replace it and you still have a BSD, albeit perhaps a different sort of BSD. BSD is similar to GNU in that regard. (Very similar if you consider HURD.)

Anyway, there is no BSD kernel as such. The FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels are diverging rapidly, both from 4.4BSD and from each other. And then there's DragonFly....