Hi, all.

I know there is a thread that is talking about the topic a bit, so this is a bit redundant, but I'd like to hear people's comments on my reasons to ask.

Basically, I have been a Windows user for years, of course, and also a Sun (now Oracle) Solaris user since 1985 or so. I am very facile with both Windows and Solaris at expert levels - can do system administration in Solaris for example.

Now, I am considering installing Linux on my Lenovo laptop - am tired of the slow-down of Windows over time and am not looking forward to another re-install. And am wondering what would be a good Linux distribution/version to use if I choose to install Linux rather than Windows this time! I have only the briefest actual user experience with Linux - did some work on Red Hat Enterprise version some years ago for some sys admin work ... was similar enough to Solaris at the time to make it work cleanly.

My constraints are probably similar to most people, I think ...

1. I still have many Windows applications that I must continue to use for work (Adobe FrameMaker, Altova XMLSpy, [Microsoft] Office 2013, Outlook 2013, Visual Studio 2013, Adobe Acrobat Pro, etc.) As well as other stuff that I want to use for myself (Garmin Express, Prezi, Snagit, Xara Web Designer 10, etc.)

But I really don't want to dual-boot into Windows - just as soon not use Windows again!

So ... how reliable is Wine for this purpose? Is it supported enough that people can ask about specific apps anywhere (i.e., is there a "works fine" list)? Or is there an alternative to Wine (including commercial products) that would be better?

2. Which windowing software distribution supports multiple screens very well? I have a laptop that has both an Intel HD4000 graphics chip (built-into the processor) as well as an Nvidia K2000 chip. I use it in a dual-screen configuration (two Dell 24" monitors) when docked at home or work - the laptop screen is closed down at that point.

As a test, I booted Ubuntu 14.10 from an ISO written to a DVD to check it out. When the laptop was open and undocked, graphics were fine (although apps took a few seconds to load from the DVD, of course), although the default load did not have the Nvidia drivers running yet.

However, in the dual-screen mode (with the two external monitors), the graphics was like molasses and totally unusable. Literally took tens of seconds for menus and pop-ups to open, close, etc.

Would this be the behavior even if I had installed it into the drives? That would be totally unacceptable! What am I doing wrong?

3. Which windowing system would people recommend or like? There are, of course, multiple distributions at Ubuntu, and the other ones like Mint, available. So, things can get quite confusing in a hurry for new users of Linux ... argh!

Thoughts and comments would be appreciated!

Z

And, yes, I realize that "best" is somewhat relative here ... it is just that with so many distributions, it is confusing to decide how to proceed.

That has been the reason I have not taken the plunge before ... I don't have the time at work to really try too many options!

Z

I'll answer your questions before making a recommendation.

1. (Windows applications)
Fortunately, WINE is very much distro-agnostic. However, getting each program to work is very much an individual matter. Some work with absolutely no effort, others need quite a bit of configuration. WineTricks and PlayonLinux can help by providing automated setup based on configurations other users have tested, and of course there's the winehq appdb compatibility wiki which is HUGELY helpful in determining if Wine is going to run the program you need at the stability level you require. You don't need to pick a distro off of Windows compatibility. Just install WINE, winetricks, and playonlinux on whichever you go with and you'll be equally set (or not set, depending on what it is you're trying to run). I have a bucketload of programs running in WINE with no issues thanks to these programs. I also have a bunch more I am not willing to spend the time fighting with to get running right, though.

2. (Multi-monitor)
Unity (Ubuntu's desktop environment) is slow and unresponsive and not very good at multi-monitor. Unfortunately, most of the distros that are "out-of-the-box-ready" (which sounds like what you're looking for) are based on Ubuntu and share the same issues regardless of DE (desktop).
As far as drivers, the story is the same in most cases: You can run proprietary drivers, or you can run the xorg driver wrapper that is open source. Usually proprietary drivers will support the HARDWARE features better, but xorg will support software better and will generally offer much better performance in my experience--be it Nvidia or AMD/ATI. Linux and Intel graphics historically don't get along very well. Of course, that's not really a Linux probleml; Intel graphics are infamous for being atrociously terrible with crummy hardware and software support (not to mention the sub-par performance). I would definitely use the Nvidia chip for best results.
One thing worth noting is that Linux handles multimonitor a lot differently than Windows. It treats all your monitors like one big display surface and handles them together. This is both good and bad. Windows' multimonitor support was pretty terrible before Windows 8, but it became very solid and moderately robust with 8. Linux has some compatibility issues from time to time, though. For instance, Diablo III, even when run in fullscreen mode, still sees the my second monitor when it is enabled. There's a bug in the game (at least under WINE) which causes the mouse to see that second monitor as part of the window bounds. What happens is the OS cursor placement is capable of moving to the 2nd monitor while Diablo's cursor does not. You end up with an invisible cursor that can still click but can't be seen. D3 is the only program I've experienced this on, however.
Another quirk is that Linux Mint doesn't seem to like HDMI output out of the box. It can be configured but will require effort and knowledge (or at least googling).

3. Windowing/DE
DEs are very much a personal preference thing. Some are feature-packed, some are shiny, some are designed to be light on resources, some are designed to be responsive, some are user-friendly, and there are mixes of these and more.
I have experimented with a few, but my favorite overall is Cinnamon (Mint's default DE). Mate is also quite good (and available on the alternative-but-officially-supported Linux Mint Mate distro). Mate is very lightweight. Cinnamon is extremely scalable--it can be almost as lightweight as Mate or it can scale with LOTS of customization and enhancements. Both are quite Windows-like in general behavior, which makes them approachable. But they're also much more modern and have learned from the likes of Unity, KDE, and mobile OSes in terms of accessibility and ease of use.
The good news is: you can always install a different DE if you don't like the one you start with.
The bad news is: this isn't entirely flawless as many core apps (like settings config apps, file browser, etc.) are built to work with their accompanying DE, so if you start with Ubuntu and install KDE, you'll find some odd issues occasionally.
You can mostly-seamlessly switch between multiple installed DEs as well, if you'd like to spend more time deciding which you like best. The "greeter" (login prompt) for most distros lets you select a DE to boot to as you log in.

So, all this said, my recommendation would definitely be Linux Mint (Cinnamon). It's ultra-stable as it is based on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS core and gains from all its improvements. But it is vastly more usable and straightforward than Ubuntu due to the absence of Unity and the presence a lot more "out of the box" setup. Mint's point is to have everything you need already there, which is a lot different from other Linux distros which give you a basic core but leave out anything third-party in the name of openness. I have not had any issues with Mint and it has been my longest-used single distro. I ran Kubuntu 14.04 and 14.10 as well as various 14.10 and older Ubuntu releases with both Unity and Mate before. None were as flawless as Mint.
I like KDE at first, but it started to bother me after a while. The file manager is terrible, there's a bit of bloat in the name of shininess, there's no Terminal shortcut by default (instead, there's a pop-down command prompt at the top of the screen--a good indication of the excessive focus on ease of use over usability), And it handles some basic things oddly in a way that's offputting. I liked it better than Unity overall, but I did not end up sticking with it.
Mate I liked as well, but it did not quite offer the degree of customization I was looking for on my powerhouse desktop. It would be extremely well-suited to a less powerful laptop, though.

Thanks much!

I will read that info ... and may ask more questions later.

Z

An addendum:

It looks like Linux Mint likes HDMI just fine, but only detects the display if it's on when the OS boots. I just happened to boot with the TV on and set to HDMI input and Mint mirrored my main display to the TV by default, which is what I spent an hour trying to get it to do last week with no luck (not used to having to reboot Linux to get things to work--it's not Windows, after all).

Ah!

SWAG: maybe the driver (or configuration for it if it is not a separate driver for the HDMI output perhaps) is not loaded at boot then.

Does Linux have the equivalent of "modload" (this is in Sun Solaris)? if so, you might be able to load the driver in a boot up shell script (located in directory /etc/rc2.d ofr Solaris for example) even if the HDMI cable is not connected ...

Sorry I am using Solaris example ... I am not familiar with the equivalents in Linux yet.

Z

IMO/short rant:
Linux works f*** great. Really great. Huge strides have been made to make things user friendly.... but at its core its still made by a bunch of nerds. Utilities are often made CLI only at first, and nice useable interfaces are made as time allows.
Linux is so versitile, I find it can be hard to find distros that work well out of the box. Most work 99% but basically all that I have tried have eventually had at least minor nagging issues. At that point the premade distros are harder to fix because they are not nearly as transparent.
/rant

IMO there are two styles, and if your technical and hands on I kinda urge you to choose the second.

First, finished distros like mint, ubuntu, ect I find to be like a modern car. Everything should just work, and you are not even supposed to check your transmission fluid. Pop the hood and you only see as plastic covers. As long as everything works your gold, but if there is an issue its probably with one of the convoluted "solutions" they provided you.

Second, distros like Arch (I am bias and run arch on everything, lol), or gentoo... Not at all for everyone, you basically have to install and configure every component of the system yourself. This is like a 70s car. Grab an adjustable wrench and some duct tape and you can fix ANYTHING in an afternoon. No extra parts and whats there is pretty simple. Arch at least (gentoo too) makes this "easy" with the most insainly amazing documentation and step by step walk through I have seen anywhere (not just computers)
I bet you could do that second route pretty easily judging from you last post...
And yes, you can do something like modload...
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernel_modules

MOD, are you familiar with xrandr? basically the stripped down way of dealing with multimonitors. It will tell you what monitors are attached and allow you to set what ones are active, how they are sized and where they are located... check out http://i3wm.org/docs/userguide.html#multi_monitor its from the i3 window manager docs, but gives good examples of the xrandr command at work...


Wine
Hit an miss? Your probably screwed on your visual studios. Can you adapt to another DE? If your working in VB you probably wanna stick with windows, at least on a virtual machine inside linux otherwise what about eclipse? Similarly with like outlook, ect... do you really NEED these, or could you make other alternatives work? Part of using linux will mean a new set of tools.... You will be much happier if you can just find a Linux equivalent instead of trying to pretend your still on windows.
Make sure you check out: https://appdb.winehq.org/ , they keep a database of how well programs work in wine that is fairly extensive (as well as sharing info needed on what additional components need to be installed)

Multimonitor - see above... I think most desktop environments use their own tools to interact with you and automate monitor setup, but on the backend I think they are all just using that xrandr utility to tell the kernel whats attached, as such they should all work decent. Perhaps there will be some differences in how pannels or widgets are handled in a multi monitor environment.

Windowing/DE
Your wrong if you don't use only a tiling window manager.
(have we established that this part is my opinion?)
DE's-
XFCE4 is an old one, and can look like it.... Especially with a default install.

Mint makes it look a little bit nicer. Super stable however, very well supported and with enough work can be made to look REAL nice. Great lighter weight option with lots of features.

Cinnamon is nice, and fairly fancy... but IMO too young. I used it for a while and if you want a basic DE that looks nice its a decent choice. I don't think its AS stable as older options

Mate is a fork of gnome 2, 3 was too big of a change, so people maintained the old one... Its nice. Not as polished looking as Cinnamon, not as supported and expendable as XFCE4, but maybe a nice middle ground if your not trying to do anything crazy but want lighter weight then cinnamon.

Unity is OK.... but its own style... and heavy. If I was using a DE I would prefer closer to a windows paradigm? I feel like unity reminds me more of mac?

KDE is great. Heavy. Learning curve too... I had to google how to change my desktop background, lol. Hugely customizable, good stability, very modern... I think this is my choice until I realized that a DE is just a buch of crap I don't need taking up resources, and I don't care what things look like...

WINDOW MANAGERS-
You only really need a window manager
Nice because its very lightwieght and very basic.... But you get nothing other then a way to handle windows.... So if you want a panel you will have to download and run one separately... if you want a battery status you will need to handle that separately, if you want wifi status/dialogs you need that separately... Most will have some forum of system tray though so you just need like nm-applet for instance to add wifi status, or xfce4_power_monitor for dimming options, ect...

i3 is what I use, its a manual tiling WM. Basically when you have one window open its full screen. When you open another application, it will split the screen in half. You can choose horizantal or vertical, as well as resize the split between the two windows. You can then split one of those windows in half, ect... so no windows overlap, they all tile and take up the full screen with 10 virtual desktops. LIGHTWEIGHT. once you have X installed on your system, i3 is like 3mb, vs ~300 for a typical DE. You DO have to run a program to set a background if you want one though, otherwise it will just be black lol.

Awesome WM Does the same thing, but tries to dynamically resize the windows. You choose different layouts and it will automatically do one window taking up the full left half of monitor, with two windows split vertically on the right (or what ever other of its handfull of layout options you choose)

Openbox is good if you want a more typical desktop.... good for basic window control, drag them around, minimize, maximize, ect...

Live CDs are great though. Get a USB drive and start flashing different distros. Then boot up and try for a while...

Debian is crazy stable but typically older software avalible from its repos. They are not in a rush to get new versions they may break.

Ubuntu is a debian derivative but with newer repos... and canonical. I don't think they are really with the spirit of linux anymore... They just want to monetize and be their own thing... Decent base for other distros though.
Mint is where I would send someone who doesn't want to do computer stuff, but wants to use linux

Arch installs only a basic system with a command prompt, no graphics. You then build out exactly what you want. You have to pay attention, and modify configs... But all the software tends to be bleed edge and some how this is still the most stable distro I have run by leaps and bounds (likely do to the fact that I am better at it, because they teach you a lot more, because you HAVE to know more to use it). Nice part here is you can just uninstall your desktop environment and re-install an new one. Lets you test what you like pretty well as you don't need to re-install the base system to almost completely change how you interact. My laptop has had basically all the environments I listed here installed and unistalled at one time or another, with out re-installing OS. Basically any linux can do this, but MUCH easier to do on something like arch.

Gentoo is similar to arch. I don't think their documentation is as good. It is interesting in that all programs installed are built from source on your computer... So if you want to geek out and setup build flags, everything will be built for YOUR computer and will likely work very well.


SUMMARY:
Basically Arch for hands on (feel free to shoot me an email if you want help with that), or Mint for just works (hopefully)
XFCE4>Mate>Cinnamon>KDE
Going from lightweight to fancy

Sorry... I wrote too damn much.

Thanks for the detailed info - it is appreciated! So, you didn't write too much.

Some time ago, I downloaded Mint and have been playing with it off and on on a spare laptop (haven't touched it in almost three weeks though due to business travel ).

Unfortunately, some of my needed applications don't work under Wine, so I have been looking at alternative to get the work done ... till I can replace Adobe FrameMaker effectively, this may become a non-starter. I may end up leaving one laptop on Windows - with just FrameMaker loaded.

In the meantime, I will also check out Arch ... in a little while though! I am an old Solaris user (been using a Sun - now Oracle - system of some sort since 1986 or so) and am not worried about setups needing configuration. However, there is a balance here, since my primary purpose is work applications and not fiddling with the OS too much. My purpose of replacing Windows is because I am getting tired of its flakiness. Although my current Windows 7 system is not unstable at the moment, the fact that things go awry on the occasional boot-up is an irritation.

Again, thanks for the information.

Z

Hi szh,

Originalwheelman's wife here. Mint Cinnamon is okay, and Ubuntu is defintely the gate-way distro -- easy to adapt to. A lot of people seem partial to debian-based distros here, but there's nothing wrong with rpm-based distros, which is what i've mostly developed with. You might be familiar with using rpm, aka "redhat package manager", from your experience with Red Hat. Might I recommend Open Suse with LXDE windows manager? It's very stable, established, and has great community support. KDE is the base option, but it EATS RAM NOM NOM NOM. LXDE is way lighter-weight. Then, you can use a virtual machine to run your Windows. VMPlayer free is my favorite, but you might have a preference. Haven't used WINE at all...haven't had the need yet. But create any virtual machine - you'll be able to do what you need. You could try the Steam OS, if you're a gamer :P

I am running Arch on one of my dev machines. It's great. You then get to pick your window manager and there are sooo many to choose from. A favorite around my parts is Gnome 3, but I'm partial to OpenBox. A few of my friends have started using i3m. If you like the customization of Arch, you might like the configurability of OpenBox and i3m. If you go with Openbox (and probably i3m), just remember to get arandr (graphical) and/or xrandr (non-graphical) with your pacman utility.

If you like ease of use, you might like Gnome 3, which is fairly configurable, as well. I am not sure which is best for running multi-screen.

Best and Have Fun,
The Mrs.
**Disclaimer, I am an Intel employee. Opinions here are not necessarily reflective of Intel.

Thanks much! I had created a system with Mint, and played with it, but have not had the time to thoroughly check out my necessary applications yet - these past few months have been quite hectic.

Later this summer, I plan to try to get back to testing it again and see whether I can get everything working properly on that second laptop. If so, I will get my primary laptop going the same way.

Thanks again,

Z

sorry to threadjack but,i have unbuntu14.4 , and i cant change the aspect ratio on the display to see the icon bar, what do i do

jbracy7 wrote:sorry to threadjack but,i have unbuntu14.4 , and i cant change the aspect ratio on the display to see the icon bar, what do i do

Use better linux....


Err I mean...

What do you mean? Whats the native resolution of your display, and what resolution are you running? why can't you change your resolution to one that matches your display?

Reguardless of resolution and aspect ratio, typically monitors will show the pixels they are given... If part of the screen is being cropped off that sounds like a monitor setting. Google the model and look for the PDF user manual, and see how to change it off of auto, or 16:9.... look for one like full or try them for the one that displays the full screen so you can use your GUI to change to the correct resolution?\

OR google xrandr, and hopefully you can use some key combo to launch terminal... then set the resolution to the natural resolution for your screen.

‎BackTrack 5! best for what I like to do

mcheddadi wrote:‎BackTrack 5! best for what I like to do

Is that really what you do?
... Cause Backtrack 6 came out sometime in 2011, and the entire backtrack project has since been abandoned in favor of Kali linux?