Chakra Claire-2012.10 Review

After hopping from an Ubuntu install with a broken permissions system (how is it even possible that root can't read files anymore?) to Sabayon, and promptly remembering why I left Sabayon in the first place, I have hopped to a distribution I haven ever used before: Chakra Linux. For the readers that don't know, Chakra is a Linux distribution with a very stiff, almost dictator-like control on what packages can and can't be installed from their repositories, and the default desktop environments (or the ones that are available). Take a look at why I chose to let the Chakra developers decide what was good for my computing sanity in this week's review.

My opinions on *BSD

BSD, the Berkley Software Distribution, is one of the least-used variety of Operating System in the world. BSD has been around for a very long time, even before the times of Linux. It is a version of Unix, the grandfather of most Operating Systems. Technically, Mac OS X is a fork of BSD, which is what allows OS X to be POSIX compliant.

There are a few choices to choose from with your distribution of BSD. Like with GNU/Linux, hundreds of them exist. The more popular ones are FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and PC-BSD. PC-BSD is the only one of the bunch that comes with a graphical desktop environment installed by default, so it is considered the "newbie" BSD. Debian is creating a variant of their OS with the BSD kernel and intends to turn it into a major project, but it is still in early development.

FreeBSD is know for its speed. Speed and performance are the two major selling points for BSD; it even claims to run more efficiently than Linux. FreeBSD is not for the feint of heart, however, because it will take some expertise to get it running properly and to install graphics if that is what you wish to do. You will also have to deal with some outdated repositories, since porting them to BSD takes time.

OpenBSD is focused on providing an extremely secure operating system. I can't vouch for its security personally because I never used it on a server, but it seems to be the choice for companies or individuals who want a secure desktop or server.

PC-BSD is the most user friendly version of BSD. It is criticized for coming with a lot of "bloat" preinstalled. Other lightweight versions of BSD do not come with a lot of features installed, usually just a compiler, a text editor, and a few other tools that can be used from the command line. PC-BSD on the other hand comes with X, a graphical desktop environment, and a few graphical tools that other versions do not have preinstalled. If you are new to BSD, I would greatly recommend PC-BSD as a starting point.

Above are my opinions on some of the various distributions of BSD, but I feel differently towards BSD as a whole. I feel that BSD is far behind Linux in terms of support, package updating, and user-friendliness. The first kernel panic I ever experienced was actually in the LiveCD of PC-BSD. Also, the BSD license allows others to edit the source and turn it into proprietary software, which I don't support morally.

In conclusion, *BSD is great for heavy server use, but for practical desktop usage you should go with another alternative, like GNU/Linux.

Debian 6 - Squeeze

         Ubuntu is one of, if not the, most popular Linux distribution; but it didn't just rise from the abyss. Ubuntu is actually a fork of another distribution called Debian, which takes to calling itself the "Universal Operating System". The reason for the fork was to create a familiar environment that is just updated more frequently than Debian was, and it seems to have stuck. Ubuntu is not the only fork of Debian, other distributions such as Linux Mint and Gnewsense are based off of Debian.

      I was fearful of trying Debian at first, since I hadn't yet stepped out of the "user friendly distributions". When I first installed it a few months ago my fears were confirmed, and nothing seemed to be going my way. First of all, network drivers for my wireless card (Ralink) were not installed during the installation like other distributions have done. At first I blamed Debian for being a poor distribution, but it turns out it was done for a reason: my drivers were proprietary, but I did not yet know that. Next I ran into issues with composting, since Gnome 2 doesn't have a composting manager by default.

    With all the trouble I was having with Debian I retreated back to Ubuntu, discouraged by everything that went wrong. 3 months past, and I was more eager than before to move away from Ubuntu. I searched around for what the root of my network problem could be until I found that it was caused by a proprietary driver not installed by default. I tracked down the exact driver I needed here, downloaded it from a computer with internet, and installed it on Debian with the command "sudo dpkg -i (filepath to the .deb). Now that I had internet, I was a happy camper since I would be able to search around on how to fix problems on the OS that was causing them.

   After some work on it, I had it finetuned exactly to my liking, and all was good... until I managed to break it to the point that reinstalling would be the easiest thing to do. After a reinstallation I lost interest in Debian since I would have to reinstall all of the software I had lost and reset all of the keyboard shortcuts, settings, etc. 

   Overall I found Debian 6 to be an amazing Operating System once you get everything on it working. One of the greatest tricks is editing '/etc/apt/sources.list' to add, change, or remove repositories. The repositories for Debian 6 were somewhat outdated, even to the point where it still used Gnome 2, so adding a few new ones for more recent software is a good idea.

  My recommendation to anyone considering trying Debian would be to not go with the stable release, but unstable or even the experimental one. 

    

Comparison of three Linux Operating Systems

A while back I wrote Comparison of Operating Systems, but it turned into more of a tutorial than anything. It only compared Windows and Ubuntu Linux, my current OS. So now I am going to compare Fedora 15, Opensuse 11.4, and Ubuntu 11.4. Let's start with Fedora.

Fedora is a free Linux OS sponsored by Red Hat, the creators of Red Hat enterprise Linux. The fifteenth release (the most recent at the time of writing) includes the Gnome 3 desktop environment in it's fullest form. It has some Gnome features that you can't get from the unstable repository currently available on Ubuntu. It starts off with just a close button, but that can be easily fixed using the Gnome tweak tool. As an Operating System it didn't seem to vary much than how Ubuntu acted when I had Gnome 3 on it. It did have one serious graphical issue. I was doing some 3D graphics at the time using Google Sketchup 8 through Wine and it wouldn't boot in fedora. I did some Googling and sifting through the forums and found that Fedora had some unofficial Nvidia drivers instead of the ones found through Administration>Additional Drivers in Ubuntu. After manually installing these drivers all hell broke loose on the Operating System. It simply wouldn't boot after installing the drivers. This is a known problem and it wasn't something that I had messed up installing them. If you do 3D art or anything else that requires good graphics (Heavy desktop effects, gaming, and 3D just to name a few) then Fedora isn't for any Nvidia user. Otherwise it was a very nice and friendly operating system.

The next Operating System is Arch linux. Looks pretty similar to an OS X and Windows mixtogether, right? Incredibly wrong. When, (and if you are able to) install Arch Linux you have no GUI whatsoever. You need to manually download and configure an X11 Window manager and a desktop environment to get a GUI. However, this makes Arch an extremely lightweight OS when you first download it. Arch is a platform on which you can build upon whatever software you wish. Arch Linux comes with a package manager called Pacman, which many people find to be a step up from apt and it is. Pacman can even give suggestions to what packages you may be looking for if you make a spelling mistake in your query.
Arch can be seen as a canvas where the artist can paint whatever they wish.

The last Operating System in our comparison today is Ubuntu 11.04. Ubuntu started off as a fork from Debian, the Universal Operating System. At first all it aimed to do was improve on Debian's slow update times, but it turned into something else. Now Ubuntu is the distribution of choice for newcomers to the Linux kernel. It is where users aspiring to move beyond it come to learn, and it is where people who want a highly customizable OS come to stay. Because of Debian's popularity, and now Ubuntu's, anything available to Linux is usually available to Ubuntu in the form of a .deb file, which requires 0 source building. I could start complaining about Unity again, but I have already done that and it isn't what this post is about. The installation is made easy with the Live CD, so there is virutally no command line to have to worry about during installation.

The decision...
Even though Ubuntu, Fedora, and Opensuse are great Operating Systems I have to make Arch the winner of this comparison. Arch just gives you the very basics and lets you decide what part of an Operating System you need. Do I use arch? No. Do I think it is a great idea of a Linux enthusiast to use Arch? Yes.

Rambling about Google's Operating System

Google's chrome operating system (not to be confused with Chrome the web browser) is inching closer and closer towards it's final release. It's goal, in my opinion, seems to make our idea of a modern operating system seem like it is too much of a hassle for someone to use.
 


Chrome OS deals with just the internet and doesn't allow you to download any software, store any files, or do many of the things that we all do daily. The video starts off by saying we spend 90% of the time on our computers online. For intense Facebookers or web designers this may be the case, but for the rest of us it is not. I spend around 5 hours daily on a computer and probably only 1 hour total on the internet. Another one of the Operating Systems draws is the startup time. Apparently they aim to reduce it to 7 seconds by release. The OS that I use only takes a maximum of 6 seconds to get to the login screen and another 6 to become completely useful, so they are spreading misinformation in the form of high numbers to gain downloaders.


An obvious problem with Chrome OS is simply the idea. Why would I want an Operating System that can only access the internet and not store files on my computer? That doesn't sound like simplicity  or ease of use to me, it sounds like an excuse to make a cheap operating system.

Let's use my computer as an example. I have a 1.5 TB hard drive 26% filled with software, pictures, and documents. My desktop is filled with 8 folders, 28 programs, and 6 documents. One of the programs is Google Chrome, my web browser. What Chrome OS wants to do is drag all of my folders and documents to the trash and leave all but my web browser, and finish by calling it a revolutionary idea.

The Operating System also introduces terrible security issues. You can still save files on your computer, but it is a hassle. Everything is stored "In the cloud". Which is perfect for some files, but not the case for all. Would you feel okay uploading the contents of all of the folders in your home directory to the internet? Or uploading that world-changing story or program you're writing? Before you answer keep in mind that hackings increased  over 90% this year. Stuxnet, the worlds most advanced computers virus, nearly destroyed all of Iran's nuclear centrifuges. If a virus can do this it can also find your files online and abuse/steal them.

I, and I think a lot of the readers here, are Google supporters. Their products are unmatched by any other when it comes to a friend user interface and speed, safety, and usefulness. However I am not hopping on the Chrome boat, and if it doesn't change a lot of people won't.

Ubuntu Linx 11.04 - Natty Norwhal superpost.

This post will be updated multiple times as more information becomes available from the users of the new release. This post is strictly for covering the new Ubuntu Linux release (11.04 - Natty Norwhal) and comparing it to the previous 10.10 version Maverick Meerkat. Since the release of Ubuntu 12.04 (Precise Pangolin) it is recommended that users do not use 11.04 since there were MANY improvements, mostly to the Unity desktop environment.


The Installation
I wouldn't want to begin describing an Operating System without telling my readers how they can get their hands on it. Ubuntu is released here directions to the Natty Norwhal beta will be displayed in the main window on that page. Or, you can go to it directly from this link. If you have a shaky internet connection using Bittorrent is a good idea to download Natty. (I downloaded mine through Bittorent.) To download it through Bittorent go to the download page and select either "ubuntu-11.04-beta2-desktop-amd64.iso.torrent " or "ubuntu-11.04-beta2-desktop-i386.iso.torrent"
These are not interchangeable, however. If you're unsure of which one to download use the
 first one. The only difference is that one is for systems that have a 32-bit architecture and the
other is for 32-bit systems. If you use more than 4GiB of RAM, choose 64-bit.


The download can take anywhere from 5 minutes to 5 hours depending on your speed. After
 it's complete it should be saved in your directory where downloads normally go to. 
(By default in Chrome this should be C:/Users/(User)/Downloads). You should see 
"Ubuntu-11.04-beta2-desktop-amd64.iso" there.


Now you're going to have to burn the .iso to a CD to install Ubuntu. Get a CD and configure
 it for file burning in Windows or your current operating system. Roxio is perfectly capable 
of burning .iso's but I prefer Infrarecorder. Unfortunately Infrarecorder is the only program
 I will give instructions for, but documentation exists for other CD burning tools. When you
 open Infrarecorder you will select "Burn Image" at the top.
 From the Burn Image menu select the "Ubuntu-11.04-beta2-desktop-amd64.iso"
 from the directory it was downloaded to. Move the burning speed to the lowest possible
 speed to prevent improper burning.

If you are on a Linux system already Brasero for Gnome and k3b for KDE environments do
the job perfectly. If you are not using X then dd can write the disk image.


Once everything is burned to the disk restart your computer. When you see the intial startup
 screen (Where the splash for your motherboard's company will appear for dell users and BIOS revision can be seen)
 hit f12 or delete. They vary across motherboards. You should see [Command]=boot menu.
 That is the command that you want. when you reach the Boot menu select CD-Rom.


This will begin the CD's job. Your BIOS will now search the disk for an operating system and boot into the hard drive if it cannot be found.
 You should see the Ubuntu menu appear Abandon your mouse for this
 part. You're about to be going full-keyboard. Select Install and follow the instructions as
 you're told to do so. To prevent unexpected problems using the guided setups is the safest
 option. When you get to the part where you need to set up a partition you probably want to
 select the first highlighted option unless you're interested in overwriting your old
 information and Operating System and beginning from scratch. Set your partition size to
 however much space you think you'll need. (This can be changed later on.) I selected 250GB,
 which was over 50% of my total space on my available space. When you are making a custom
layout for your partitions, it is a good idea to leave at least 30 MiB of space called "Swap Space".
The partitioner will do this automatically if you are resizing or using free space.


Once everything is complete Ubuntu will ask you to start typing in Information like a hostname, password, and username.
 You can make this up but be sure to remember both of those crucial sign-in components. 
Losing them, especially as an administrator of the system, can be an extremely complicated
 issue to fix. Once all of your information is set up Ubuntu will install the files that it needs to
 run. If you have an internet connection it will also download extra language packs and updates if you specified so on the first page of the installer. 
You will then be brought to a screen telling you to reboot your computer. Remove the CD and reboot.


Once you're in...
You've probably seen the pictures of Unity (the new desktop environment)
 and expect the taskbar to be on the left side as advertised.
 You assumed correctly and incorrectly at the same time. Unity requires a graphics
 card that allows desktop effects to be moderate. Even if you have a graphics card it may
 not be automatically detected. Since you're stuck in Gnome until you do so, go to
 System>Administration>Additional Drivers. Search for drivers and select your graphics 
card from the list. After clicking enable it will be ready to run Unity after a reboot. 
(For the prewritten step internet connection is required. So set up Network Connections
 in the top right corner.)


Welcome to Unity!
Once the reboot is finished you will now be in the newest desktop environment for
 Ubuntu Linux. Congratulations. Chances are you'll miss having the old 
Applications, System, and Places tabs at first. It's logical, everyone grows connections
 to their old tools. In fact, some Ubuntu users have chosen to stay with the outdated
 Gnome 2.X interface, prompting Canonical to include it in 12.04 and inspiring multiple forks.
After some mucking around in Unity you will find it just as easy to use as Gnome.
 My original plan was to make a demo video of Unity, but due to an unexpected issue
 (nervous stuttering) this can't take place. The unity taskbar is pretty self-explanatory anyway.
 To remove an icon from the bar just right click and deselect the "Keep in Launcher" option.
 To add items just move them from the applications window. To open all applications click the
 plus-signed magnifying glass and hit the left arrow near all applications. Right clicking
 applications or files will give you the categories so that you don't have to search down
 the entire list every time you want a program.


Customizing Natty
11.04 presented Ubuntu users with the most complex graphical user interface they've ever
 seen in an Ubuntu. If you're looking just to show off or to impress yourself or others with
 an even more aesthetically pleasing interface than the default, there are multiple options.
 The Gnome website offers themes that can be installed from
 Applications>Themes & Tweeks>Appearance. First you want to download a theme
 from http://art.gnome.org/themes/ of a certain variety. Controls are the buttons at the tops of Windows (Minimize, maximize, close) along with the color scheme of applications and folders. Background should be self-explanatory. Window borders are the surroundings of Windows. Once you download the package from Gnome you click "install" on appearances.  Double click the item in whatever directory you downloaded to and click "apply changes" to apply the new theme. Cursor themes may require a restart to function
properly.

Updates
As Open Source software Updates are released for Ubuntu very often. The first step is to
sync your computer's repository list with the official repositories. From the terminal run
"sudo apt-get update". It will ask you for your password, and then you are ready to upgrade. with "sudo apt-get upgrade". More advanced apt-features include "apt-get dist-upgrade" which will upgrade to a new release of Ubuntu and "apt-get install" which can install particular packages or update them to the newest version.


Root access
Access to Root hasn't changed. Sudo in the terminal will activate it for a specific command. Sudo -s activates it for the entire terminal session. You can also make yourself the administrator. Go to Applications and click all applications. Go to Users and groups and change your current user to administrator or make a new one altogether. The smartest thing to do would be to make a separate user for heavy modifications to your system and keep your current user the same. This way the chance of a critical error happening is lessened.

This superpost was last edited on 6:15pm on 4/20/11
If you want me to cover anything about the new Natty Norwhal release please leave a comment and I will help you specifically or include a new section to my superpost.

Operating System comparison

As you have seen in some of my pictures I use Windows 7 home premium as my operating system. I had been hearing about an operating system called linux and I thought it was just one system rather than a whole array of them. The first result on a google search revealed Ubuntu 64-bit OS.
The Installation
 I decided to download that and dual boot it with Windows 7. That process was incredibly easy. Just use the windows installer shown on the downloading page of Ubuntu. Once the 4-5GB download is complete (it took several hours for my 690 kb/s connection speed) you will need to finish installing and restart. Now you will see an option as soon as you start your computer to either use Windows or Ubuntu. You might want to use Windows to transfer necessary things over.
Once you're in Ubuntu
The first thing you should do in Ubuntu is set up your internet connection and set up what internet browsers you want to use. I recommend downloading screenlets, because it works just like Rainmeter. Now download all of the updates for Ubuntu and transfer anything you want from Windows over to Linux. You should also download a program called Wine for running Windows Programs of which there is no linux equivalent. Linux cannot run .exes. Because of this it is incredibly secure and hard to catch a virus on.
How to customize Linux
Use your Ubuntu software center in Applications > Software Center to hunt down any software you want. Some are installed already by default and are designated by a green check in the software menu. You can add your messengers and emails to the options in the top right corner of your screen.

Analysis
So far it seems that Ubuntu linux is a very user friendly OS and is very secure, reliable, and customizable. It also offers a wider range of tools for coding / scripting. However many programs highly popularized by Windows can be run in Ubuntu due to its incapability to run executables. If the programs is pretty well known Wine, which I mentioned earlier, should be able to solve the problem. The ability to have workstations in Ubuntu is also an a very big plus. It has really helped with my clutter of windows that I experienced in the Windows OS. So my conclusion would be that Linux is pretty much superior to Windows in every way that I could see possible. I would definitely recommend downloading this free OS instead of paying for a Windows upgrade.