Switching to Linux and comparing Archlinux vs Ubuntu
As an experienced Windows user, I thought about switching to Linux because often stumbled upon laudatory articles and notes by bloggers. So I decided to experiment and describe my little experience.
The pros and cons of Linux and Windows I think it makes no sense to describe, it has already been discussed millions of times, I can only say for myself, I'm sick of viruses in Windows with Windows! Heavy antiviruses are not annoying with agility, but a little from the lungs. Yes, and the days of simple viruses have passed, when 1 executable was killed and you live on without straining, now the registry will be killed and copied to a hundred different places and more often only manual removal of all this wickedness helps, because antiviruses either do not delete them at all, or they do not completely remove them, which actually is almost the same thing.
First you need to understand that Linux is not a free Windows and if you like playing 3D toys, sculpting in Potoshop and doing other highly specialized tasks, then I think there is no sense with these troubles and transitions to Linux, only you will lose time, it's easier to put Seven / XP and enjoy life.
That is, each product copes well with one set of functions and passes in another, and this is the law of our life, unfortunately, there are no ideals!
To begin with, I think it's worth googling and finding (or not finding and thinking again) all those applications that you use in Windows and without which life at the computer will be a burden.
There are a lot of articles on this subject so there should be no problems. Here's an example of a couple ( Communication programs , programs for the Internet ).
After 2 hours of searching on the Internet, I realized that Linux'e has everything I need in general, which could not but rejoice!
Then it’s worth deciding on the distribution ...
On the one hand it’s the simplest, for most Ubuntu and Linux, the concepts are inseparable like Xerox and a copy machine, but on the other it’s not so simple.
I would like to note what turned out to be news for me, it turns out that in addition to Ubuntu there is also Kubuntu (in general there are more distributions based on Ubuntu, more detailed information ) actually this is the same in terms of structure, architecture, etc., but the main difference is the window manager, Ubuntu has Gnome on board , and Kubuntu has KDE .
No one bothers to read the article, upload both of them and do it in 10 minutes from Ubuntu Kubuntu, but it seems to me that this is not the best option.
In the end, I decided to focus on KDE, but Gnome initially seemed more friendly to me, in the gnome, I really didn’t want to reconfigure anything for myself, everything was a little different from Windows, but it’s convenient and you quickly get used to it. I really liked that all the quick access applications and the system tray were on one panel (top) and displaying open windows on another (bottom) is very convenient in my opinion.
Where did I have to set up ... and I set it up both by the method of scientific poking and using Google, because some moments were decidedly annoying, for example, initially the desktop is a kind of closed space for widgets and you cannot drag your document there or for example you cannot drag an application shortcut to the taskbar. By default, the “Start” menu, for a beginner, is generally a nightmare ... At first glance it’s nice and convenient, but when you don’t know which program the search slows down in any of the cases ... Fortunately, all this is set up if there is time and desire.
Ubuntu seemed to me to be much easier to use and to configure to its ideal than Windows!
All the drivers I got up automatically.
In order to install applications / additional drivers, you just need to go into the program, enter the name of the desired application and 80% -90% that it will be found in the repository, then click install and use ... that's it! You don’t need to look for installers from moronic, in our time, software servers on which, to download the application, you need to follow 10 links to look at a bunch of ads and if you are very lucky to run into which thread the virus ... You do not need to store all the necessary and unnecessary distributions on your computer locally, which become obsolete with time, so you don’t need to look for cracks.
In general, I spent an hour and a half to two installing and setting up ubunta, of which about 20 minutes I only configured Firefox with all the plugins I needed.
Well, after 2 hours, I realized that everything seems to be as it is - ICQ works, flac plays, 1080p video shows without problems, well, it opens all docks with pdfs. And most importantly, I have 8Gb of memory, on a 32-bit ubunt you can see them without any dancing with a tambourine. What for the desktop Windows by the way is not realistic at all.
In general, the mission is complete!
Everything is good in ubunt, everything is beautiful and simple, but I also wanted to get some brain-sensing sensations from Linux, and here it’s a couple ... 10-clicks of the mouse and that's all ... not so interesting :)
And in Ubunt I still didn’t like one moment, there everything was decided for me, all the applications are already installed, a lot of everything is loaded automatically, the same huge and incomprehensible amount of software in “Start”, I ask, why do I need all this ?? And it’s not surprising that Ubunta, I with ATI’s firewood immediately ate 500-600Mb after loading, and after gatherings in Firefox, bookmarks 5-10 the amount of memory eaten increased to 1Gb ... I must say right away that after disconnecting something that is not clear and Apparently I didn’t need autostart, 300-350 on average began to be consumed when loading, which wasn’t so scary (my w2k3 eats 300 when loading ...) Actually, I don’t mind memory, but I'm a fan of keeping control system and understand what for what and why. Therefore, the policy of ubunta did not suit me a little.
And it immediately became clear why some were unhappy with this OC, like it slows down more than Windows ... Now I'm not surprised if I had, for example, 512mb -1Gb of memory on board, I think I would definitely not like it for its speed!
As I understand it (this is my IMHO and no more) distributions are divided into 2 main areas: 1) Oriented to a simple user (who is completely not interested in the intricacies of the OS and the computer as a whole) - such as Ubuntu, RH, Suse, etc. 2) Distributions aimed at experienced Linux users who know what they need from the OS and are ready to spend some time fine-tuning and optimizing their OS, for example, such as ArchLinux, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo
Each distribution has its own ideology, so after reading Some articles concluded that ArchLinux is something between Ubuntu (where everything is simple) and something like Slackware, Gentoo (where everything is complicated).
I liked that this distribution is tailored for one architecture - x86, there is a 64-bit, 32-bit distribution, which means that it is already initially optimized for a standard PC platform without anything superfluous. According to the descriptions and as it turned out in practice, ArchLinux is not so scary, it all starts with the command line and the nano / vi editor, but it’s quickly set up and complemented by whatever you like quite easily and simply
For the first time of course not easy and not fast, but google and excellent materials on the Archlinux website in the Wiki database will help you.
Whoever says that, but ArchLinux is really not for beginners in the sense in which I understand this and most importantly not for sloths. I dealt with him first in a virtual machine, because Without an Internet, I think this is generally not realistic. There is a lot of documentation, it is chewed very well both in Russian and in English so that it remains only to read and tune. Roughly speaking, I won Ubuntu in 2 hours, as I wrote above ... With Arch, everything is a little more complicated.
But in the end, while sitting at work practicing on a virtual machine, then quickly adjusting everything according to my manuals to everything on my home computer, for 5 days I did almost everything I wanted. And the kernel rebuilt so that my memory was visible and KDE set it to a minimum complementing it only with what I need, well, I installed all other applications.
What I liked, in fact, on installing software and updating it, you spend time at a minimum no more than in Ubuntu. After the actual manual configuration, you know thoroughly which config is responsible for what and where to dig if something suddenly falls off, and you just have an idea about the system as a whole. The speed of work pleases nothing; it does not slow down the memory; the first boot consumes about 250mb (by the way, without native firewood and lower screen resolution, the system loaded 150-170mb)
Time costs are not considered a minus since for which we fought for it and ran into it, but nevertheless it must be noted, the time for setting up will have to be spent several times more.
There are some things that do not work as expected until you cut them out and correct them with a jigsaw. For example, I have 2 network cards on the motherboard ... and after a reboot, they can change places in the system, for example, the first time there was eth0 one, and after the reboot there will be a second one, as a result, after Google and reading several solutions from the 3rd, everything turned out to be done by to the mind. Or, according to the manuals, the codecs set everything up, but it still doesn’t show the video files, I didn’t see what it was up to the end!
In general, I began to like Linux as an OS for the end user; every year it becomes an increasingly finished product and convenient to use. Each distribution just has its own chips for optimizing the workspace, which you quickly get used to from time to time.
This is not the same Linux that was about 5 years ago when it was necessary to spend 40 minutes to compile the simplest program for yourself.
At the moment, I have noted the following pros and cons.
Pros:
Minuses:
I have not yet been able to single out more minuses for myself.
The main idea is that before you try to switch from Windows to Linux and not be very disappointed and not regret the time spent, you need to collect as much information as possible about what is required from the computer, which applications will be executed, and most importantly, it will be decided on distribution, to start the distribution, ala Ubuntu will be the best choice because everything immediately becomes clear what Linux is and what it is eaten with, who wants more thrills, you can safely look towards Debian, ArchLinux, Gentoo, Slackware, etc.
Thank you all for your attention.
Windows vs Linux
The pros and cons of Linux and Windows I think it makes no sense to describe, it has already been discussed millions of times, I can only say for myself, I'm sick of viruses in Windows with Windows! Heavy antiviruses are not annoying with agility, but a little from the lungs. Yes, and the days of simple viruses have passed, when 1 executable was killed and you live on without straining, now the registry will be killed and copied to a hundred different places and more often only manual removal of all this wickedness helps, because antiviruses either do not delete them at all, or they do not completely remove them, which actually is almost the same thing.
Platform positioning
First you need to understand that Linux is not a free Windows and if you like playing 3D toys, sculpting in Potoshop and doing other highly specialized tasks, then I think there is no sense with these troubles and transitions to Linux, only you will lose time, it's easier to put Seven / XP and enjoy life.
That is, each product copes well with one set of functions and passes in another, and this is the law of our life, unfortunately, there are no ideals!
Conquest plan
To begin with, I think it's worth googling and finding (or not finding and thinking again) all those applications that you use in Windows and without which life at the computer will be a burden.
There are a lot of articles on this subject so there should be no problems. Here's an example of a couple ( Communication programs , programs for the Internet ).
After 2 hours of searching on the Internet, I realized that Linux'e has everything I need in general, which could not but rejoice!
Then it’s worth deciding on the distribution ...
On the one hand it’s the simplest, for most Ubuntu and Linux, the concepts are inseparable like Xerox and a copy machine, but on the other it’s not so simple.
Window Managers in Ubuntu
I would like to note what turned out to be news for me, it turns out that in addition to Ubuntu there is also Kubuntu (in general there are more distributions based on Ubuntu, more detailed information ) actually this is the same in terms of structure, architecture, etc., but the main difference is the window manager, Ubuntu has Gnome on board , and Kubuntu has KDE .
No one bothers to read the article, upload both of them and do it in 10 minutes from Ubuntu Kubuntu, but it seems to me that this is not the best option.
In the end, I decided to focus on KDE, but Gnome initially seemed more friendly to me, in the gnome, I really didn’t want to reconfigure anything for myself, everything was a little different from Windows, but it’s convenient and you quickly get used to it. I really liked that all the quick access applications and the system tray were on one panel (top) and displaying open windows on another (bottom) is very convenient in my opinion.
Where did I have to set up ... and I set it up both by the method of scientific poking and using Google, because some moments were decidedly annoying, for example, initially the desktop is a kind of closed space for widgets and you cannot drag your document there or for example you cannot drag an application shortcut to the taskbar. By default, the “Start” menu, for a beginner, is generally a nightmare ... At first glance it’s nice and convenient, but when you don’t know which program the search slows down in any of the cases ... Fortunately, all this is set up if there is time and desire.
OS K / Ubuntu
Ubuntu seemed to me to be much easier to use and to configure to its ideal than Windows!
All the drivers I got up automatically.
In order to install applications / additional drivers, you just need to go into the program, enter the name of the desired application and 80% -90% that it will be found in the repository, then click install and use ... that's it! You don’t need to look for installers from moronic, in our time, software servers on which, to download the application, you need to follow 10 links to look at a bunch of ads and if you are very lucky to run into which thread the virus ... You do not need to store all the necessary and unnecessary distributions on your computer locally, which become obsolete with time, so you don’t need to look for cracks.
In general, I spent an hour and a half to two installing and setting up ubunta, of which about 20 minutes I only configured Firefox with all the plugins I needed.
Well, after 2 hours, I realized that everything seems to be as it is - ICQ works, flac plays, 1080p video shows without problems, well, it opens all docks with pdfs. And most importantly, I have 8Gb of memory, on a 32-bit ubunt you can see them without any dancing with a tambourine. What for the desktop Windows by the way is not realistic at all.
In general, the mission is complete!
Fly in the ointment
Everything is good in ubunt, everything is beautiful and simple, but I also wanted to get some brain-sensing sensations from Linux, and here it’s a couple ... 10-clicks of the mouse and that's all ... not so interesting :)
And in Ubunt I still didn’t like one moment, there everything was decided for me, all the applications are already installed, a lot of everything is loaded automatically, the same huge and incomprehensible amount of software in “Start”, I ask, why do I need all this ?? And it’s not surprising that Ubunta, I with ATI’s firewood immediately ate 500-600Mb after loading, and after gatherings in Firefox, bookmarks 5-10 the amount of memory eaten increased to 1Gb ... I must say right away that after disconnecting something that is not clear and Apparently I didn’t need autostart, 300-350 on average began to be consumed when loading, which wasn’t so scary (my w2k3 eats 300 when loading ...) Actually, I don’t mind memory, but I'm a fan of keeping control system and understand what for what and why. Therefore, the policy of ubunta did not suit me a little.
And it immediately became clear why some were unhappy with this OC, like it slows down more than Windows ... Now I'm not surprised if I had, for example, 512mb -1Gb of memory on board, I think I would definitely not like it for its speed!
Choosing the brain of a crushing Linux distribution!
As I understand it (this is my IMHO and no more) distributions are divided into 2 main areas: 1) Oriented to a simple user (who is completely not interested in the intricacies of the OS and the computer as a whole) - such as Ubuntu, RH, Suse, etc. 2) Distributions aimed at experienced Linux users who know what they need from the OS and are ready to spend some time fine-tuning and optimizing their OS, for example, such as ArchLinux, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo
Each distribution has its own ideology, so after reading Some articles concluded that ArchLinux is something between Ubuntu (where everything is simple) and something like Slackware, Gentoo (where everything is complicated).
ArchLinux Theory
I liked that this distribution is tailored for one architecture - x86, there is a 64-bit, 32-bit distribution, which means that it is already initially optimized for a standard PC platform without anything superfluous. According to the descriptions and as it turned out in practice, ArchLinux is not so scary, it all starts with the command line and the nano / vi editor, but it’s quickly set up and complemented by whatever you like quite easily and simply
For the first time of course not easy and not fast, but google and excellent materials on the Archlinux website in the Wiki database will help you.
ArchLinux practice
Whoever says that, but ArchLinux is really not for beginners in the sense in which I understand this and most importantly not for sloths. I dealt with him first in a virtual machine, because Without an Internet, I think this is generally not realistic. There is a lot of documentation, it is chewed very well both in Russian and in English so that it remains only to read and tune. Roughly speaking, I won Ubuntu in 2 hours, as I wrote above ... With Arch, everything is a little more complicated.
But in the end, while sitting at work practicing on a virtual machine, then quickly adjusting everything according to my manuals to everything on my home computer, for 5 days I did almost everything I wanted. And the kernel rebuilt so that my memory was visible and KDE set it to a minimum complementing it only with what I need, well, I installed all other applications.
What I liked, in fact, on installing software and updating it, you spend time at a minimum no more than in Ubuntu. After the actual manual configuration, you know thoroughly which config is responsible for what and where to dig if something suddenly falls off, and you just have an idea about the system as a whole. The speed of work pleases nothing; it does not slow down the memory; the first boot consumes about 250mb (by the way, without native firewood and lower screen resolution, the system loaded 150-170mb)
There is certainly a fly in the ointment
Time costs are not considered a minus since for which we fought for it and ran into it, but nevertheless it must be noted, the time for setting up will have to be spent several times more.
There are some things that do not work as expected until you cut them out and correct them with a jigsaw. For example, I have 2 network cards on the motherboard ... and after a reboot, they can change places in the system, for example, the first time there was eth0 one, and after the reboot there will be a second one, as a result, after Google and reading several solutions from the 3rd, everything turned out to be done by to the mind. Or, according to the manuals, the codecs set everything up, but it still doesn’t show the video files, I didn’t see what it was up to the end!
Conclusion
In general, I began to like Linux as an OS for the end user; every year it becomes an increasingly finished product and convenient to use. Each distribution just has its own chips for optimizing the workspace, which you quickly get used to from time to time.
This is not the same Linux that was about 5 years ago when it was necessary to spend 40 minutes to compile the simplest program for yourself.
At the moment, I have noted the following pros and cons.
Pros:
- Convenient work with applications, several commands can be downloaded and installed on almost any application.
- Visually more beautiful and most importantly more fine-tuning options.
- Beautiful does not mean slowed down, everything can be done, the main thing is to have a desire. It will work as an empty XP and visually give odds to seven.
- Security. I can’t even write a better security or an improved one here is just another world. Linux can be hacked, of course, but it must be done pointwise, that is, on a specific computer, and who needs a simple user?
- Competent work with memory !!! For all the time of use, my swap file has not increased by one kilobyte. Therefore, Firefox with 10-20 windows minimizes / collapses to / from the tray like a bullet. I achieved this effect on Windows with the swap disabled and with the transfer of tmp files to the RAM disk.
Minuses:
- A fat minus is that some Windows analogs of programs that facilitate everyday life, for example: RoboForm, Punto Switcher, a music player that can open cue files normally, do not work as they should and as we would like, there are some glitches, bugs and minor but annoying flaws.
I have not yet been able to single out more minuses for myself.
The main idea is that before you try to switch from Windows to Linux and not be very disappointed and not regret the time spent, you need to collect as much information as possible about what is required from the computer, which applications will be executed, and most importantly, it will be decided on distribution, to start the distribution, ala Ubuntu will be the best choice because everything immediately becomes clear what Linux is and what it is eaten with, who wants more thrills, you can safely look towards Debian, ArchLinux, Gentoo, Slackware, etc.
Thank you all for your attention.
