Wich linux destro.

[TurboRascal]

So to recap, in order of appearance rate
1) *buntu derivatives especially ubuntu 10.04 LΤS or Kubuntu 12.04
...
Stay away from unity desktop embrace any kde or gnome desktop.
1) KDE 4 seems to be recommended as a stable Desktop manager.
2) Gnome2 is preferred over 3.

Note that with Ubuntu you can chose only between KDE or Gnome 3; Gnome 2 is not available in any modern distro anymore. However, some distros (notably Mint) offer Mate desktop which is a fork and continuation of Gnome 2 branch. If you're for Gnome 2, go for a Mate-based distro. Mate and Xfce offer classic desktop, while Gnome 3 (and somewhat KDE 4) offer some "innovations" which are quite controversial and are something quite different (especially with Ubuntu's Unity)...

How about installation procedures have they changed any in last decade or so or everything is as I remember it text based configuration files with each destro having its own directory tree to place them?

Installation procedures for any modern desktop based distro (Ubuntu, Mint, SuSe, Fedora etc.) are quite easy and straightforward and GUI based. Whoever is able to install Windows will be able to install Linux with no difficulties.

Software configurations are mostly kept in configuration files, but directory trees are more or less standardized and systemwide options are kept under the /etc directory. System software (init-scripts) has only two directory structures, SysV (most Linux distros) and BSD (Slackware Linux only). Other software mostly uses its config files (*.conf) in the /etc, some larger software packages creating their own subdirectories (e.g. X).

But, while it is good to know basics of the OS used, for the average user this is mostly irrelevant, comparable to the Windows registry. Most system settings can be set with GUI tools, and desktop applications have their own Options/Preferences dialogs and save their settings, just like on Windows. Only for hardcore tasks or when some problems occur is there a need to edit configuration files in /etc (again, similar to the Windows registry).

Of course is way to early for me to start installing linux. I have a lot of work to do before I'm ready to boot linux and start working there too. The moment that I install linux I expect to spend most of my developing time in linux and only boot in windows once a day to check emails fill in daily reports etc.

If you switch to Linux to do something, perhaps you can start doing the other things too...

Why not set your email client (like Thunderbird) and open your documents (using LibreOffice) in Linux too? That's how I switched completely, when I realized that all my daily activities can be equally done in Linux as in Windows. Windows development done in VirtualBox (did a complete application for a small business task that way), I practically never boot to Windows on this machine again.

All that is quite easy by the way. Modern distros simply work and require almost no effort from you to start using it. The sole exception is if you have a hardware incompatibility like problems with display or WiFi, only then you need to fiddle with drivers or configurations. Most machines I've tried had no problems at all. Also I often found Linux easier to install on many machines because of the fact that all drivers are included, compared to say WinXP where I've always needed to get and install drivers for practically all hardware.

I'm not a fun of constant updates. when I install a linux distribution I will stick with it for a long time updates will be done once every 6 months or so and only security updates will be installed for sure everything else will be considered if time permits.

Well, that's exactly as (non-LTS) Ubuntu and Mint do, with new releases every 6 months (containing upgraded software) and periodical updates (containing patches and fixes). The only difference is, they also offer stability updates and other bug fixes besides security ones, but I see no reason to refuse them. So, I'd say you don't need to change the default update policies at all.

thank you everyone for your input I have something to start my research.

You're quite welcome. Good luck in your Linux-quest

[gato2707]

@taazz

Arch is not recomended because its installation process is only in text mode, but Arch is a great distro, plus it's a rolling release distro, it's mean there aren't versions, it's in constant upgrade process.

Gnome 2 is dead. You must use Gnome 3 or other DM as your own wish. The only distro with actualized software (as I remember) is Fuduntu.

Ubuntu 10.04 is going to finish its live cycle in 6 months.

The big share of modern distros have a graphical installer, must of them in your native language.

Due your 1 GB RAM I DO NOT recommend Unity, but KDE (without effects) could be a good option: Test it.

An intermediate option is Cinnamon, now it's avaible in a lot of distros (incluided Ubuntu) not only in Mint.

I never heard about conflicts between windows drivers with linux drivers, if you perform a separated installation (please do not use wubi or similar tool).

Before to begin an installation process, make a backup of all your windows files and perform a complete defragmentation process. Then you can chose into linux installer a dual booting installation.

Linux is in a constant update process, but once intalled you can reject any upgrade, or made a selection of them as your own convenience.

[taazz]

Since we have so many people that use linux in here I would like to extend the focus of the topic a bit more.

I have noted down everything you guys said so far and I will do a proper read up on those subjects as time permits a few questions just to get the hang of things.

1) Am I correct in assuming that all DMs use the X windows subsystem for the graphics support and they build on top a widget set that applications can use?
2) Which DM is the most rich in the spirit of widgets and text support.
3) what is the recommended disk space required for an installation
4) how many partitions and their size are recommended 

I will take as granted that a swap disk partition is still needed and along with the main installation partition that brings the minimum requirements to 2 partitions. As I recall there where 3 required for the maximum security or 4 if the home directory was to be on a partition of its own.

I am asking for the recommended for the system to work properly and the minimum.

Thank you everyone for your time on this. I definitely appreciate your inside.

regards
Jo.

[gato2707]

@taazz:

1) Yes
2) KDE, but remember: widgets use memory and processor resources, but you'll not need expend resources in firewalls, antivirus tools, etc.
3) As a min 8GB (KDE) but I'm sure you'll need more, I usually install with 10 - 15 GB for root (/) and the rest of avaible space for /home and swap.
4) 3: /, /home, swap. You'll find a lot of different approaches vg: separated partitions for /usr and /boot. but I really never note any difference in performance, security or any other relevant aspect.

How size for /home? well its depends on how many information you want to store in your disk. You will need space for each user configuration files. A separated partition for /home isn't mandatory, but it's the best option. in this way you can upgrade or your system, inclusive change distribution without risk of any lost in your data.

For 1 GB RAM you only need 1 GB of swap, but again you'll find a lot opinions on that.

Suggestion: Why don't watch videos about different Linux DM's? Remember love begins for the eyes. There are a lot in your favorite video web page.

[ludob]

2) Which DM is the most rich in the spirit of widgets and text support.

You were mentioning a customer. You'd better use the same platform as your customer. Same for the choice between LTS and "bleeding edge". Developing a piece of software that your customer can't run unless he upgrades all libraries involved is no good. I have still several old linux distributions around in a VM just in case, especially for apps distributed as binaries.

3) what is the recommended disk space required for an installation
4) how many partitions and their size are recommended 

Depends on what you want to do. My development machine uses a 16GB partition for / and a 1T disk for /home. Obviously databases and other data are going in /home and not in /var or /opt. Separating the OS from the data has the advantage that migrating to another OS can be done fairly easy. When using multiple disks this is also beneficial for the speed of your machine. On the other hand, if it are just partitions on the same disk it can affect negatively the speed of your system. 

Gnome 2 is dead. You must use Gnome 3 or other DM as your own wish.

Don't forget that gnome 3 uses GTK3 and fpc/lazarus don't have the bindings for that, yet. AFAIK Mate uses gtk2 (for the time being?) but Cinnamon uses also GTK3.

When going for one of the lightweight DM's XFCE or LXDE you'll find that the interface is very fast and familiar compared to Gnome 3 or KDE 4. On the other hand, you are stuck with file managers that lack a lot of interesting features such as network support. Sharing a dir as a windows share is a few clicks with Gnome nautilus. XFCE requires installing and configuring samba yourself and the last time I used thunar (XFCE file manager) it wasn't able to access network shares without a lot of fiddling (installing and configuring gvfs,...). In the end lightweight DM's require a much better knowledge of linux than the mainstream "fat" distributions.

[JuhaManninen]

Of course is way to early for me to start installing linux. I have a lot of work to do before I'm ready to boot linux and start working there too. The moment that I install linux I expect to spend most of my developing time in linux and only boot in windows once a day to check emails fill in daily reports etc.

Why would you do such thing?
At least I am able to check my emails without booting to Windows.

You are too much afraid of this Linux installation now. Most people are, that's why Linux is not popular.
Even in a IT school people only think of command line and cryptic commands when they hear the word Linux. Obviously they have not seen a modern Linux desktop system.

So, you are able to create a bootable USB or DVD from a distro image, right.
Then just boot it as "live" (not installing yet), play with it, check your hardware works and then click "Install" if you like it.
You can browse the web or chat with us WHILE the installation proceeds.

About desktops, as gato2707 mentioned, latest KDE 4.8 is optimized and runs nicely with 1 GB of memory. Actually it runs nicely with 512 MB (yes, tested).

Regards,
Juha

[TurboRascal]

1) Am I correct in assuming that all DMs use the X windows subsystem for the graphics support and they build on top a widget set that applications can use?

Yes, but bear in mind that DM does not dictate the widgetset. You can run applications based on any widgetset your system has libraries installed, no matter the DM.

3) what is the recommended disk space required for an installation

I wouldn't go less than 10-20GB for for a modern distro install, plus home. I've recently installed one to a 10GB partition and it's very tight, you have to carefully chose what you install. I normally have about 40 GB, all partitions except home combined. You  need to give something to home partition of course, and that should be as much as possible because all your user data goes there; I'd say also in the range of tens of gigabytes, probably also not less than 10-20.

For swap there are no strict rules, you can give no swap or several times your RAM, it all depends on how you use your memory. I'd create something in the range of 1-3 times the physical RAM, I'd rather have it a bit too much than insufficient.

4) how many partitions and their size are recommended 

I will take as granted that a swap disk partition is still needed and along with the main installation partition that brings the minimum requirements to 2 partitions. As I recall there where 3 required for the maximum security or 4 if the home directory was to be on a partition of its own.

Yes, you need a swap partition, and a home partition is highly recommended to isolate your data from the OS. That way you can also easily install Linux from scratch if needed, and have your home the same. I also use it for dual-booting two Linux installs with the same home. You can also split the filesystem to several partitions (for example, I've always had separate usr, var and tmp partitions), but that is not necessary, especially if you're not sure how much space to allocate to which partition. Multiple partitions improve system robustness if a crash occurs, and also helps against fragmentation, but with modern journaling and extent based filesystems (like ext4, xfs, btrfs etc.) there is much less concern for that then it used to be.

Another thought when placing the swap partition, people often forget the impact of physical placement on the disk. Even modern distros completely ignore it and by default offer one big root partition and a swap partition after it. That's absolutely worst you can do, since hard disks by design get practically half the transfer speed near the end than near the beginning. The seek time is also worst possible since all your data on the linux partition will be more or less crammed near the beginning, and swap being at the end of that space. That means the head has to cross the entire area every time your system swaps some data and works with the filesystem at the same time! All this doesn't concern people with SSD's since they don't have different speeds or seek times depending on the location, but for all mortals having a normal HDD, this is quite significant. So, you want the swap partition as close to your data as possible (between the partitions is fine) and to the beginning of the disk.

So based on all this, I'd say you go for something like this: first the root partition, then swap, and then home. A reasonable example would be, say 20 GB root, 2 GB swap and 40 GB home.

[gato2707]

Don't forget that gnome 3 uses GTK3 and fpc/lazarus don't have the bindings for that, yet. AFAIK Mate uses gtk2 (for the time being?) but Cinnamon uses also GTK3.

Lazarus runs fine with GTK 3 - Gnome 3. Tested with 0.9.30.4, 1.0 RC1, 1.0 RC2, 1.0 and CodeTyphon 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8.

Into Gnome - Shell, Unity, Unity 2D, Gnome Fallback (Gnome Panel) and Cinnamon.

You'll have problems only with Unity, and only in Ubuntu, cause liboverlay (the new scroll bars), but as has been written here on several occasions, the solution is inhabilitate or better unnistall it.

[ludob]

Lazarus runs fine with GTK 3

Would you mind running

Code: [Select]

ldd lazarus and tell us what version of gtk is loaded? I bet you'll find libgtk-x11-2.0.so. GTK3 breaks binary compatibility with GTK2 and Lazurus GTK2 links explicitly with gtk-x11-2.0.so. A safe bet

So, to run Lazarus on Gnome3 GTK2 (or QT) needs to be installed in addition to GTK3.   

 

[gato2707]

@ludob:

Of course you are right, but seriously, what is the difference? GTK2 librarys will stay avaiable long time. I think this isn't the right forum for expose the reasons on that.

If you feel better I want to reexpose:

Lazarus runs fine in Gnome 3 based distros, installing the appopiated dependencies for GTK 2. Moreover in a lot of cases (tested in Ubuntu and some derivatives) installing dependencies is totally transparent process for the user.

[TurboRascal]

@gato2707: I think @ludob just meant to point to the fallacy of your statement that Lazarus "works fine with GTK 3" which is incorrect.

The question is not with which desktop environment Lazarus works. It works fine with Gnome 3, as it does with Gnome 2, KDE... or Xfce, or LXDE, or just a TWM window manager and nothing else. Lazarus doesn't care which desktop you use, it just needs proper libraries for the widgetset it uses. And for GTK, it uses GTK 2, not GTK 1 anymore, nor GTK 3 yet; again, Lazarus doesn't know nor care what the other apps use.

[taazz]

Let me sum up everything I have read so far.

1) Doesn't matter which DM I use it only matters to what libraries (GTK,QT) is using so I will not have to install them my self.
2) I can install all those libraries regardless of the VM and my programs written against GTK or QT will run on any vm as long as the libraries are installed on the box.

As to
1) why I would want to boot in windows, there are to many reasons to address here lets just say I can not choose between the red and blue pill, I have to keep on crossing between worlds.

2) I am too much afraid of just trying. Its not fear its caution I don't have my regular desktop and this darn laptop is way to fragile for my liking the data in he secod partition is customer data and are not to be lost for any reason I can't keep getting backups of them since I work and change them on a daily bases so I'll have to get one just before the installation but I would want anything to happen to them while I'm indulging in some kind of witch hand.

3) Why everyone things that linux is a console with crypic commands, because most graphic based configs support only around 60%~70% of the existing choices at some point you will have to drop down to console mode and use that darned keyboard. So it makes sense to keep all that knowledge fresh and always use that darn console.

With a single disk of 70GB and almost 60% fool capacity 10GB for system + 2GB for Ram, +10GB for home is out of the question. I'll need to minimize the installation to extremities, that meens no sql servers, no office, no extra programs. only a filebrowser, lazpaint for any icon work, lazResourcer or what ever its name is for resource editing, firefox, thunderbird preferably portable both on an external disk so they will not take any disk space if they can't be portable then only firefox for the odd search on the net when developing.

from what I have read so far kde4 as a DM with minimalistic installation as much as it can be minimized is what I am looking for. Or even better a light height linux distribution where I can install the QT Libraries later on and have lazarus working on it something like puppy linux or damn small linux or tiny core and walk my way up from there.

thank you everyone appreciate your time and knowledge.

[gato2707]

@TurboRascal:

Excuse me if you feel my answer is quite ironic, surelly I try to maded it as little ironic as possible. I think there were an unnecessary desviation on the original theme. We (any one who's answer) must read and understand the original sense of the question.

If you read the last @taszz post you'll understand my position. He isn't concerned about libraries, he only needs an advice, and make him confortated getting securities about his own needs.

@taazz:
In my own laptop I had a similar situation years ago. Now I have a very little windows partition and use the most part of de HD for Linux, but due the hardware limitations in an old machine (dell inspirion 1501) I am using Bodhi Linux. It's based in Ubuntu, only follows the LST version and use Enlightenment (E17) desktop.

It's requeriements are very little if you compare it with Gnome or KDE. I'm talking about RAM, Processor and HD space.

In the other hand, One step more talking about the beauty of Enlightenment. E17 is a totally different paradigm in desktop experience. You can download de LiveCD and try.

Just rememeber, in this life is very difficult to be rich and hansome at same time.

Regards

[TurboRascal]

Excuse me if you feel my answer is quite ironic, surelly I try to maded it as little ironic as possible. I think there were an unnecessary desviation on the original theme. We (any one who's answer) must read and understand the original sense of the question.

If you read the last @taszz post you'll understand my position. He isn't concerned about libraries, he only needs an advice, and make him confortated getting securities about his own needs.

If you think my answer was rude or inappropriate in any way, that wasn't my intent. I merely wanted to point to a factual error, regardless of context...

NHF