Hey, I just want to share something I've learned few days ago.
Maybe, somebody already know this but I still want to share.
Here we go.
On Suse Studio, you can build your software and everything you need depending on your own style. So, you can customize your software and
have it your own name for branding.
If you're interested, take a look for it and try making your own Disto.
Yes, but... Is it a way of creating your own distro (create your own auto-install DVD in order to boot on it) or is it a way of customizing your Linux environment after having installed a standard Linux distro?
The best way to build your own distro is Linux From Scratch. :PA bit hardcore though, and requires a lot of time to get started.
yep! linux from scratch is definitely better!!!
i made a distro, and its quite cool. its fun to do as well!!
Linux from scratch is not newbie friendly. It takes a lot of time for beginners to understand what is going on and what are the things that really go with the linux distro. Instead suse makes things easy by showing what you need and what you get out of the customization. This thing is way better than the linux from scratch distro that you can think of here. Just few clicks instead of whole analyzing linux distro and making bare minimum out of it type thing.
not too hard, but linux from scratch good for people that want a lot of customization, and also allows the person to understand more of the strucure of linux distros
Not too hard ? 0.o Linux from scratch is for intermediate or advanced users and not at all for newbies. Those who are new to linux, packages and compiling will learn it the easy way from LFS ? No. I guess you're saying that because you're intermediate user. I tried to teach few noobs and found it hard to explain to them. Anyone from windows or mac side if gets into compiling from scratch will surely find LFS borign and annoying and completely hard.
You sure about that? cause I started off as a mac user, and just messed around with linux half a year ago :PWhy i'm attached to linux? cause of terminal :Pstill using macs as primary though
You started with MAC OSX ? MAC wasn't on UNIX platform for earlier versions so the terminal that you see today was not there before. Many people are using mac from old OS 8/9 days and they definitely find compiling and terminal thing difficult. Afterall, mac was keeping users away from such thing like terminal, compilation and repositories. Take case of GCC which we use in LFS, was it there for mac or windows ? in default installation ? it wasn't.
Yeah, apple keeps people away from terminal, but doesn't stop you from using it! I use it on a day to day basis :PI'm happy with the way things are going in Mac osx. Linux is fun! Shows how much you can actually do on a computer, Including customization, which is where Linux from scratch comes in. Users should get used to Linux and terminal, then compile their own distro after they are comfortable with it
I'm a terminal man as well and using Linux for six years now.By the way, I recall someone telling me a nice thought about that - "In the beginning of his Linux way, the Linux newbie wonders why there are so many distros. At the end of his Linux way, the Linux expert creates his own distro."I've just translated it, am not sure I did that without mistakes so correct me if any.
Hahhaa never heard of that before, but it is totally true!! Have you made a distro yet?
Problem with terminal way of thinking is that it's waste of time if you're going to teach noobs. Many things can be accomplished with simple clicks and are easy to remember with GUI. But using dark background CLI people often forget things, and those who forget phone numbers and name of people around them should seriously consider GUI or desktop manager instead of CLI. Not that i hate linux. But i see that platform as less beneficial for me. Everything under that platform is going for free and that makes no room for paid developers. Same goes for any small business aiming for software on that platform. No wonder top brands are not going to put their product on linux. Linux actually made people freebie sucker and killed business. So this is the reason i prefer not to waste my time on individual distros and same goes for any particular dsitros. All the distros are on my VMWare machine and i rarely look at them as there is not a single productive app on linux for me (like photoshop, visual studio, etc).
oh... well if you do heavy duty stuff then, of course linux doesn't have it, but theres always open source alternatives, like GIMP (alternative for photoshop) I mostly do my programming on linux, experimenting with bash scripts, and stuff like that, which feels more at home on linux than on macs, cause macs are all elegant and stuff. Linux is more messy, and so it feels better to me if I do the scripting on it!
It seems that we are entering the debate concerning the main difference between a server and a workstation.A server has a lot of cpu power and a lot of very fast disks (typically some thousands of disks and several tens of processors) and has almost no GUI.A database server needs to serve the database purposes, and the database administrator simply needs a command line interface allowing to enter some sql queries (like select * from all_users where name like derek%) in order to solve a problem and stop or start the database. All the GUI's are on the user end.A user workstation has a nice graphic interface, and enough cpu to make this graphic interface work. Graphic work is a nice example, and photoshop and visual studio are the kings in that field. Of course, Gimp starts doing nice things, but most of paid such softwares are under Windows.So, graphic or command line, Unix and Linux give both, some people prefer the first one and some other prefer the second one.For instance, why should I click in a lot of windows instead of typing "mount /myserver/myfiles /mnt" ? And sometimes I also prefer two clicks instead of typing several complicated command lines.However we should stick to the main topic subject : custom or standard Linux distros?I prefer standard distros, because they have better support. On some of my servers I don't need graphics (I am not really proud of this but I don't want to wast memory for that) and I simply don't start these services, most of distros allow you to install a minimal version, with no graphics. So, no need to a custom distro, I simply choose the components I want and install nothing else.
okay...... how about this:a Custom distro based on a standard distro?then you can use the support for the standard distro, for the custom.e.g. made custom distro based on ubuntu. then you can use ubuntu support, which will most probably work for the custom distro as well!!!if this can be done, it should be ideal
Well, you're not always right. In some cases, the terminal can be your only savior, as it allows you to access a broader range of features not always available via the GUI. CLI apps are also usually faster, as they don't need to support the user interface and as a result use less resources.
Problem with terminal way of thinking is that it's waste of time if you're going to teach noobs. Many things can be accomplished with simple clicks and are easy to remember with GUI.
You sound like you dislike the idea of using the computer via the command-line only, of course you are right. But who uses the shell exclusively now?By calling myself a terminal man, I didn't mean that the only purpose of my computer is to run the text-mode shell! I, for one, use KDE4 as my desktop environment.
But using dark background CLI people often forget things, and those who forget phone numbers and name of people around them should seriously consider GUI or desktop manager instead of CLI.
Well, not yet, but I'm on the way.
Hahhaa never heard of that before, but it is totally true!!
Have you made a distro yet?
That is how Linux Mint started, for example. At first was based on Ubuntu, now I believe it uses Debian as a base.
okay...... how about this:a Custom distro based on a standard distro?
then you can use the support for the standard distro, for the custom.
e.g. made custom distro based on ubuntu. then you can use ubuntu support, which will most probably work for the custom distro as well!!!
if this can be done, it should be ideal
That is a common reason for avoiding Linux. The 'everything is free' sentence is wrong though. There is shareware under Linux, take for example a port of Unreal Tournament 2004 to Linux. It's still shareware, but it runs natively with no problems.The availability of such serious applications on Linux is more a matter of the developer not wishing to do any extra porting. Most of those apps are proprietary, by the way, which is the main cause of absence of any ports. You want Photoshop on Linux? Give us the sources! A native version will be available in a short span.
Everything under that platform is going for free and that makes no room for paid developers. Same goes for any small business aiming for software on that platform. No wonder top brands are not going to put their product on linux. Linux actually made people freebie sucker and killed business. So this is the reason i prefer not to waste my time on individual distros and same goes for any particular dsitros. All the distros are on my VMWare machine and i rarely look at them as there is not a single productive app on linux for me (like photoshop, visual studio, etc).
HEY I'm just 14
P.S.: And don't ever tell me of the complexity of Linux, I'm 13 years old.
HEY I'm just 14 i tried out mint, quite a good distro... oh my idea was already used... DARN XD
Lol. Actually there's some sort of a tree structure in the distro timeline - Knoppix and Ubuntu use Debian as a base, and now there are plenty of distros who use either Debian, Knoppix, Ubuntu or even their derivatives as a base.
Thanks for the link. Very instructive tree.Wow!I didn't know that CloneZilla and Knoppix were Debian derivatives.And, very funny. The tree shows that Mandrake is a derivative from RedHat. I love Mandrake and I hate RedHat!