How to get started in LINUX

[tightcoat]

I have an old computer that was running Win 98.  It seems to be very messed up.  I have another post about that elsewhere here.  But I have had a curiosity about linux for a while.
I think this is a 386 I don't know how fast it is or how much memory it has. 

Can I convert to linux?  How do I get started.
Right now I can't get Win 98 to open.

[BC_Programmer]

I think this is a 386 I don't know how fast it is or how much memory it has. 

It's not a 386. Windows 98 refuses to install or run on a 386.

You are going to have to find out the processor model, speed, and the amount of memory before any relevant recommendations can be made, however, a computer from the windows 98 era will be unlikely to run any of the later, more "user friendly" Linux desktop Operating Systems.

(Edit: except puppy linux and DSL (*censored* small linux) those seem to run on nearly anything)

[tightcoat]

That was quick.  I've seen this *censored* in several posts about linux.  Can you give me a hint as to the unacceptable word so I can start to look for it?  I'm serious here. I really don't have a clue.  Noe of the words I can think of seem to fit the context.

So can I download the operating system on this machine and burn a disk that will load the system and get the  old computer to boot?  How do I start.

I have a nephew who swears by linux.  He is incommunicado right now or I think he would help me.

[BC_Programmer]

That was quick.  I've seen this *censored* in several posts about linux.  Can you give me a hint as to the unacceptable word so I can start to look for it?  I'm serious here. I really don't have a clue.  Noe of the words I can think of seem to fit the context.

heh, I forgot about that, I have censoring shut off in my profile.

Think, "Dang Small Linux", but instead of Dang, the things beavers make

So can I download the operating system on this machine and burn a disk that will load the system and get the  old computer to boot?  How do I start.

That should work. Here are the download pages for the appropriate ISO disc images:

Puppy Linux: http://puppylinux.org/main/index.php?file=Download%20Latest%20Release.htm

DSL:http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/download.html

Basically, you burn the disk, and I believe these are "live" CDs, which means that when you boot from the disc it starts a fully operational version of the OS. If you want to install it, most have a desktop icon to install it to your hard drive.


There are a lot of distros out there but most of them (Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, etc) cater to more modern PCs, and don't run quite as well on an older machine. I'm sure there are other usable distributions other then Puppy and DSL, too.

[Salmon Trout]

heh, I forgot about that, I have censoring shut off in my profile.

Think, "Dang Small Linux", but instead of Dang, the things beavers make

You N Americans make me laugh with your "*censored* is a swear word".

[BC_Programmer]

You N Americans make me laugh with your "*censored* is a swear word".

 

[Salmon Trout]

Nobody else censors (or offers to censor) "*censored*" and "*censored*".

[BC_Programmer]

Nobody else censors (or offers to censor) "*censored*" and "*censored*".

It's the forum software. I don't even think you can even configure which words are and are not considered "bad". Not sure though, and too lazy to check.

[Salmon Trout]

It's the forum software. I don't even think you can even configure which words are and are not considered "bad".

And the software was written where? Anyhow, you see Americans writing "H-ll" in uncensored forums, like it was 1850 again.

Anyhow...

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=301484.0

[BC_Programmer]

And the software was written where? Anyhow, you see Americans writing "H-ll" in uncensored forums, like it was 1850 again.

quite clbuttic. 

[tightcoat]

BC_Programmer, thank you very much for the clues and for the help.

OK, 

I downloaded and burned DSL (Let the reader understand)  It worked.  I have only run it off the cd so far.
I also learned a little more of what the computer has under the hood
Pentium III
500 MHz
I think 128 K RAM

So now what kind of linux can I run.  I just as well jump in with both feet.

Since I can't get Windows 98 to open is there a way to reformat the hard drive and start over with the new OS?  This computer is probably 11 years old, has always worked just fine until last week and that was my fault.  I can't imagine that there are any old files that I have not loaded over to my current computer.  It is at least 4 years old and if I haven't needed them yet I probably won't.  All I do on this is surf.  It isn't in the room where the real work happens.

Like I said I am green to all this linux stuff but have been curious and so now must be the right time.

[BC_Programmer]

To install it to the HD, there is usually a desktop icon you start after DSL finishes loading and shows the desktop. It will act as a "wizard" of sorts to install it to the HD.

[Cityscape]

BC_Programmer, thank you very much for the clues and for the help.

OK, 

I downloaded and burned DSL (Let the reader understand)  It worked.  I have only run it off the cd so far.
I also learned a little more of what the computer has under the hood
Pentium III
500 MHz
I think 128 K RAM

So now what kind of linux can I run.  I just as well jump in with both feet.

Since I can't get Windows 98 to open is there a way to reformat the hard drive and start over with the new OS?  This computer is probably 11 years old, has always worked just fine until last week and that was my fault.  I can't imagine that there are any old files that I have not loaded over to my current computer.  It is at least 4 years old and if I haven't needed them yet I probably won't.  All I do on this is surf.  It isn't in the room where the real work happens.

Like I said I am green to all this linux stuff but have been curious and so now must be the right time.

If your computer does have a 500 Mhz CPU then I personally would run Lubuntu (http://lubuntu.net/). Lubuntu will run slower than *censored* Small Linux but it will be much better supported in terms of programs and is easier to use. It is a very lightweight version of the most popular Linux distro Ubuntu. I would recommend it for beginners over any other lightweight distro because it has one of the best user support communities. If you have problems with it there will be lots of users online who could help you fix them at http://ubuntuforums.org/. If you use *censored* Small Linux it'll be a lot harder to find help.

[SilentAssasin64]

Like Cityscape said, LUbuntu would work on that machine.  XUbuntu would probably work as well.

As mentioned, the community support for the various Ubuntu spin-offs is top notch.

I haven't used DSL or Puppy Linux is ages, so I can't really comment on how well they've been doing as of late.  I just know DSL is still one of the most popular full out-of-the-box distros (full meaning ready to go after you install it, not like Arch or Gentoo). 

[Cityscape]

XUbuntu would probably work as well.

It may be but it would be really slow, the OP would be better off Lubuntu. I've tried Lubuntu and it is quite nice.

[SilentAssasin64]

I've only used LXDE in Arch, can't speak for the Ubuntu version.  Wasn't aware it is more lightweight than XFCE.

[Cityscape]

I've only used LXDE in Arch, can't speak for the Ubuntu version.  Wasn't aware it is more lightweight than XFCE.

It is in Ubuntu because Xubuntu (Ubuntu + XFCE) does not use all the default XFCE applications. Xubuntu uses lots of heavier applications like OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP & Thunderbird, this "bloats" Xubuntu to the point that is even not much faster then GNOME. Lubuntu (Ubuntu + LXDE) however uses only the lightest application set making it a lot faster than Xubuntu.

If you had lets say Slackware with both XFCE & LXDE installed I would think that there would not be much of a difference between the two. But Xubuntu changes enough stuff (they even did custom paneling) from a default install XFCE install that it weighs the system down.

[Salmon Trout]

Xubuntu uses lots of heavier applications like OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP & Thunderbird, this "bloats" Xubuntu to the point that is even not much faster then GNOME. Lubuntu (Ubuntu + LXDE) however uses only the lightest application set making it a lot faster than Xubuntu.

This does not make sense. The amount of installed software does not affect "speed" or responsiveness.

[soybean]

This does not make sense. The amount of installed software does not affect "speed" or responsiveness.

Right, and besides, Ubuntu comes with OpenOffice and Firefox. Merely adding GIMP and Thunderbird is not going to slow down the system.

[BC_Programmer]

Joining in on the nitpick session, When did openoffice become a "heavy" application? When did having heavy applications slow performance? and more to the point, when did the graphical desktop environment have any bearing on speed related to installed applications?

And why are you comparing XUbuntu (A Linux distro) to GNOME (A Linux windowing environment/desktop). You may as well say that OSX is slower then Luna, makes no sense at all.

[Salmon Trout]

And why are you comparing XUbuntu (A Linux distro) to GNOME

Maybe he thinks Gnome is a distro?

[BC_Programmer]

Maybe he thinks Gnome is a distro?

Wouldn't surprise me, seems to be the norm among the typical Ubuntu user, also known as the diapered Linux wannabe. The kind who uses Ubuntu, not because they like it, but so they can smack their keyboards around in the terminal and say 'HAHA I AM NOT USING WINDOZE I'M A HAXOR'. Not that that really describes Cityscape but it seems all to common for a large subset of Ubuntu users. (The younger ones who want to be hip gangster hackers, or something equally (oxy)moronic.)

[Cityscape]

This does not make sense. The amount of installed software does not affect "speed" or responsiveness.

Compare two systems. System #1 has a lot of "heavier" programs installed and background processes running, System #2 has a few light programs and few background processes. Which system will be faster for general use, System #1 would be. If the user on System #1 opened his/her office suite it would be slower to open compared to the user of System #2 who using a lightweight office suite would experience better performance.

Joining in on the nitpick session, When did openoffice become a "heavy" application? When did having heavy applications slow performance? and more to the point, when did the graphical desktop environment have any bearing on speed related to installed applications?

A. OpenOffice has always been considered a heavy office suite (along with Koffice which is even heavier) by Linux users as far as I can tell.
B. Heavy applications don't always necessarily slow performance, but they often do on older hardware (which is what this was all about).
C. I dunno 

And why are you comparing XUbuntu (A Linux distro) to GNOME (A Linux windowing environment/desktop). You may as well say that OSX is slower then Luna, makes no sense at all.

Sorry, my mistake. What I meant to say was "Xubuntu changes enough stuff so that it is heavier than a default install XFCE on Ubuntu

Right, and besides, Ubuntu comes with OpenOffice and Firefox. Merely adding GIMP and Thunderbird is not going to slow down the system.

I was talking about Xubuntu not Ubuntu. Xubuntu does more then just adding XFCE and a few programs like GIMP & Thunderbird to a Ubuntu install. Xubuntu uses a heavier network applet then most other XFCE distros as well. It is well known in the Ubuntu community that Xubuntu is quite heavy, almost as heavy as Ubuntu. And that is why most Ubuntu users will recommend Lubuntu for old hardware.

Maybe he thinks Gnome is a distro?

Uhmm, no. I know what Gnome is. Gnome is a desktop environment. Other desktop environments include KDE (which I hate so much), Xfce, LXDE, CDE, ROX & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ImageFuture.png  Enlightenment ().

[Cityscape]

The kind who uses Ubuntu, not because they like it, but so they can smack their keyboards around in the terminal and say 'HAHA I AM NOT USING WINDOZE I'M A HAXOR'. Not that that really describes Cityscape but it seems all to common for a large subset of Ubuntu users. (The younger ones who want to be hip gangster hackers, or something equally (oxy)moronic.)

LOL!!!   I don't think I've come across any "those" Ubuntu users yet.

[Salmon Trout]

LOL!!!   I don't think I've come across any "those" Ubuntu users yet.

Really?

[Cityscape]

Yes.

[Salmon Trout]

Compare two systems. System #1 has a lot of "heavier" programs installed and background processes running, System #2 has a few light programs and few background processes. Which system will be faster for general use, System #1 would be.

That directly contradicts what you said before. (I know [I presume!] you meant to type either "slower", or "system #2") but I think this has gone far enough, much though I enjoy needling fanbois.) I still don't agree with anything you have written.

BC, doesn't haxxor have 2 'x's?

[BC_Programmer]

BC, doesn't haxxor have 2 'x's?

No idea.

[Cityscape]

That directly contradicts what you said before. (I know [I presume!] you meant to type either "slower", or "system #2") but I think this has gone far enough, much though I enjoy needling fanbois.) I still don't agree with anything you have written.

Typo again!    I meant System #2.

[Salmon Trout]

No idea.

I was teasing you, I hope you realise?

[FlyFishing]

Another option - why not consider OpenBSD? I've got a very old machine that OpenBSD is running quite happily on.  Don't ask me too many questions about it though as I don't use it much

But might be something you want to try.

[Cityscape]

Another option - why not consider OpenBSD? I've got a very old machine that OpenBSD is running quite happily on.  Don't ask me too many questions about it though as I don't use it much

But might be something you want to try.

Okay, but I do have 2 questions:
1. How old is this computer? (specs if you know them)
2. What Desktop Environment does it use (KDE, LXDE etc.)?

[nicksen_ger]

Lubuntu is a great distribution for slower computers... I am a big fan of Ubuntu - the community is active, it is stable and it is easy to work with... so many pros and the best factor: it is for free and u can use it for every need! 

I love Linux 

[Funkjoint]

You could run any Linux variant you like without the front end, i.e window manager, even on a 386 it would fly.