Reply With Quoteubuntu 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...
ForumSage
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?
SysAdmin (Owner)
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...
2007 Discovery 3 SE7 TDV6 2.7
2012 SZ Territory TX 2.7 TDCi
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- a warning from Adolf Hitler
"If you don't have a sense of humour, you probably don't have any sense at all!" -- a wise observation by someone else
'If everyone colludes in believing that war is the norm, nobody will recognize the imperative of peace." -- Anne Deveson
“What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.” - Pericles
"We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” – Ayn Rand
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." Marcus Aurelius
Master
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.
RoverLord
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
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
ForumSage
Mint is one I keep hearing about. Can you give a run-down on the pros/cons?Originally Posted by JDNSW
Yes I'm trialling LTS versions.
LordRover
SubscriberMaybe not ideal for work pc use but i quite like PCLOS as it sort of works and looks like windoze.
MY08 TDV6 SE D3- permagrin ooh yeah
2004 Jayco Freedom tin tent
1998 Triumph Daytona T595
1974 VW Kombi bus
1958 Holden FC special sedan
RoverLord
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, with optional MATE, KDE, and 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
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
ChatterBox
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
Master
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.
ForumSage
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.
Posting Permissions
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks