Linux Choice

[Dougal]

I'm hoping someone here can help me pick a suitable version of linux.

Intending to run linux on around 3 work computers, moving from XP because file sharing security is complete poo on XP.

One of these computers is essentially a file server. One a workstation (requires no windows software) and the third a workshop computer with similar duties to the workstation hasn't been purchased yet. Database, spreadsheets, word processing and web browser based work.
These computers need to share and secure network folders and files with windows 7 computers.

I spent last weekend playing with Ubuntu 14.04.
On the workstation it was all usable apart from printer drivers. More on that later.

I had issues with crawling display speed on the file-server computer (currently an older laptop) which I could solve with a different desktop environment. But the different desktop (gnome) made finding everything more difficult.
This is running forcepae but I suspect the crawling display speed is due to the ati/amd display drivers not working.

On the workstation (64 bit laptop) Ubuntu 14.04 is working perfectly except for the printer driver. It appears others have found workarounds converting RPM printer drivers to debian (debian driver supplied does not work).


So the questions:
1. Is Ubuntu the right version of linux for these tasks or is there something else I should be trying?
2. Is it worth considering redhat or other more commercial releases?
3. Future expansion will include a linux web server. How does this impact the choice of linux version on the other workstations?

[incisor]

ubuntu will be fine

you get it in server and desktop variants with packages to suit..

package management is good and easy...

if you want to go the redhat way try centos.... but i always found package mangement better on debian variants...

[TeamFA]

I would go Ubuntu as well. I had a distro running only a couple of months ago, and as long as you get the specific video drivers (sounds like the issue you had with the ATI card), you'll have no problems with performance.

[JDNSW]

Ubuntu shoould be fine, although I changed several years ago to Mint, which is derived from Ubuntu and I find an improvement (I use the KDE desktop).

You may find it an idea to use the long term support variant of either of these. Ubuntu 14.04 is one of these as is the latest Mint 17.

John

[Dougal]

Ubuntu shoould be fine, although I changed several years ago to Mint, which is derived from Ubuntu and I find an improvement (I use the KDE desktop).

You may find it an idea to use the long term support variant of either of these. Ubuntu 14.04 is one of these as is the latest Mint 17.

John

Mint is one I keep hearing about. Can you give a run-down on the pros/cons?

Yes I'm trialling LTS versions.

[loanrangie]

Maybe not ideal for work pc use but i quite like PCLOS as it sort of works and looks like windoze.

[JDNSW]

Mint is one I keep hearing about. Can you give a run-down on the pros/cons?

Yes I'm trialling LTS versions.

The main difference is that several years ago (2013) Ubuntu introduced their own desktop, Unity (Unity seems to be trying to be a desktop equally at home on all devices), while still retaining as optional other desktops such as KDE, Gnome and Xfce. While still available, support was reduced for KDE about a year ago.

Mint has the default desktop Cinnamon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon_%28user_interface%29), with optional MATE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATE_%28desktop_environment%29), KDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE), and Xfce. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfce)

Perhaps the most significant difference between the two is that Mint tends to have a more conservative appearance, and also comes with some non-open software by default such as Flash, MP3 and DVD codecs, which the user has to install with Ubuntu.

There is also now available a version of Mint derived directly from Debian.

Mint uses Ubuntu software repositories, so exactly the same software is available for both.

Canonical seems also to be emphasising the use of cloud computing, so if this is the way you see yourself going, perhaps you would do better with Ubuntu. Similarly if you want paid commercial support.

In my view, the differences between the two are unlikely to be significant for most users, although the concentration of effort by Canonical on Unity does suggest that if you prefer other desktops, perhaps Mint would be preferable.

Perhaps the major difference in the two is that Ubuntu is produced by the company Canonical Ltd plus community, where Mint is produced by several individuals plus community.

Hope this helps,

John

[djam1]

I would use Mint
Have run it as a test for a few weeks find it to be the best so far
I love Fedora but it's a bit too close to the edge

[mjm295]

I use red hat at work so I always prefer fedora at home.

1. If your comfortable with Ubuntu then why change? It can do everything you need.
2. Don't waste your money on commercial releases, all I get out of it is stable updates. The paid for support is no better than the Linux forums and often slower. Paid for support comes in to its own when messing with really specific bespoke stuff.

Answer to 3. It doesn't. Apache/tomcat doesn't care what flavour is underneath as far as I know.

[Dougal]

I use red hat at work so I always prefer fedora at home.

1. If your comfortable with Ubuntu then why change? It can do everything you need.
2. Don't waste your money on commercial releases, all I get out of it is stable updates. The paid for support is no better than the Linux forums and often slower. Paid for support comes in to its own when messing with really specific bespoke stuff.

Answer to 3. It doesn't. Apache/tomcat doesn't care what flavour is underneath as far as I know.

At this stage Ubuntu still isn't usable. The printer drivers aren't playing ball on any level (Canon MF8300) and samba won't install on the machine that is being used as a file server.
The difficulties trying to work out why samba won't install are compounded by the necessary change in desktop enviroment and nothing else being where the instructions suggest it should be as a result.
So we don't yet have a usable install of Ubuntu on either computer we are testing with.

At this stage money spent on commercial releases is a tiny fraction of the time spent. Spent 12 hours on Ubuntu and Crunchbang with no usable result.

[isuzurover]

We use debian and xubuntu. Ubuntu is horrible these days imho.

Xls is still better than oo spreadsheet unfortunately.

[Dougal]

We use debian and xubuntu. Ubuntu is horrible these days imho.

Good to know it's not just me.


Xls is still better than oo spreadsheet unfortunately.

Absolutely. I still use excel for all my involved calcs. I use OO spreadsheets for all the lower complexity stuff.
I haven't found a use for.xlsx yet. Every "compatibility warning" I get saving as .xls is over the (default) shade of red used to highlight cells. Seriously!

[DBT]

+ 1 for Mint.

Have been running a Mint server (Samba) at home for many months. More stable than any of my previous home Windows servers, even though it's the oldest hardware i have in use.

Cinnamon is pretty good as far as Linux GUIs go. My UI occasionally hangs requiring a reboot, even though the OS still happily hums away serving files underneath the dead UI. It's annoying but I haven't bothered looking into it yet.

I don't run printer drivers on mine, but if you need Canon driver support, send me a PM. I have good contacts with the Canon tech Gurus in Sydney. Used to work with them.

[clubagreenie]

When ubuntu went down hill i switched to elementry. ubuntu based but without the issues.

[isuzurover]

I should have added we have managed to get both xubuntu and debian to talk nicely to our network printing system here.

[mjm295]

At this stage money spent on commercial releases is a tiny fraction of the time spent. Spent 12 hours on Ubuntu and Crunchbang with no usable result.

I would try Fedora next. Cups works for us, some canon and sharp printers.

Edit
Rpm driver will work with fedora

[Dougal]

I would try Fedora next. Cups works for us, some canon and sharp printers.

Edit
Rpm driver will work with fedora

I have CentOS here ready for a crack. Just need to order a new hdd. The current one occasionally fails to boot.

[Dougal]

So I tried another install on the ~2004 Dell 600m laptop. Now this one has PAE support, but it doesn't show. So all these linux distributions from the last like 3 years throw up their hands in despair thinking I've got a 1994 laptop and refuse to do anything.

Ubuntu current versions have a forcepae command to bypass this hysteria, but Ubuntu isn't usable on that computer.

Any advice? Currently looking at peppermint 3. This computer is basically a backup server. It's not a workstation and doesn't need to print. I do however use an identical machine to drive my little CNC mill. No plans to go to linux on that one yet.

[mouce]

I would try Fedora next. Cups works for us, some canon and sharp printers.

Edit
Rpm driver will work with fedora

Fedora has a HUGE community supporting it, with a new verison released every 6 months or so. That said...I've used Fedora as both server OS (in a business setting, and at home) as well as on laptops/desktops as workstations.

With fedora you've got a lot of different desktop environments (GNOME, KDE, LXDE, XFCE...) so if you're running slightly "older" equipment, you don't have to run the top-end desktops, and you can still get good performance.

It's very closely related to Redhat, which means that if there are "drivers" for your equipment for Redhat, there's normally a way to make it work in Fedora.

[workingonit]

Dougal, maybe it's your Dell that does not want to play - curious, how do you know it has it if it doesn't show? Is there a PAE option in BIOS? From wiki "Physical Address Extension"

Linux[edit]
See also: Executable space protection § Linux
The Linux kernel includes full PAE mode support starting with version 2.3.23,[17] enabling access of up to 64 GB of memory on 32-bit machines. A PAE-enabled Linux kernel requires that the CPU also support PAE. The Linux kernel supports PAE as a build option and major distributions provide a PAE kernel either as the default or as an option.

The NX bit feature requires a kernel built with PAE support.[18]

Linux distributions now commonly use a PAE-enabled kernel as the default, a trend that began in 2009.[19] As of 2012 many, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux / CentOS, Ubuntu (and derivatives like Linux Mint),[20][21] have stopped distributing non-PAE kernels, thus making PAE hardware mandatory.

Distributions that still provide a non-PAE option, including Debian (and derivatives like LMDE), Slackware, and LXLE typically do so with "i386", "i486" or "retro" labels.[22][23]

PS. I just bumble along with unsupported Fuduntu on a USB.

[Dougal]

Dougal, maybe it's your Dell that does not want to play - curious, how do you know it has it if it doesn't show? Is there a PAE option in BIOS? From wiki "Physical Address Extension"

Yes it is the Dell, or rather the Pentium M chipset it uses. It's a common problem with Linux on the Dell D600 and other high end laptops from that era.

Crunchbang installed ok on it, but at this noob stage I needed a bit more out of the box functionality. Older versions of Ubuntu install but require hacking to reach repositories so other software can be installed.