On Thursday 03 September 2020 23:39:16 J Leslie Turriff wrote: > On 2020-09-04 01:07:15 William Morder via trinity-users wrote: > > On Thursday 03 September 2020 20:55:40 J Leslie Turriff wrote: > > > On 2020-09-03 22:41:23 Michael wrote: > > > > On Thursday 03 September 2020 09:59:50 pm J Leslie Turriff wrote: > > > > > My brother, a long-time windoze user, suggested to me last night > > > > > that he might give Linux a try. Looking at the Trinity website, I > > > > > see a plethora of Live Disk images for various distros available; > > > > > but which one is most likely to give him a stable and versatile > > > > > experience? He is already somewhat skeptical, having seen my > > > > > occasional struggles with multimedia issues on my OpenSuSE > > > > > machine*. (This opportunity will also give me some exposure to > > > > > Debian-based distros, a probable plus.) > > > > > > > > > > Leslie > > > > > > > > > > * (OpenSuSE does not seem to think that multimedia is important, > > > > > and its support is somewhat sketchy compared with home-computer > > > > > oriented distros). > > > > > > > > MX Linux > > > > https://mxlinux.org/ > > > > > > > > Huge dev team that has made it a really easy user experience. It's > > > > very easy to build a Live USB (Xfce). And the MX Package Installer > > > > simplifies adding many popular applications. TDE can be added to the > > > > MXPI > > > > > > > > https://wiki.trinitydesktop.org/MX_Linux_Trinity_Repository_Installat > > > >io n_ In structions > > > > > > > > If you're interested, I'll ask in the MX forum what the steps would > > > > be to add TDE to their Live USB. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Michael > > > > > > Well, I was really looking to use one of the ready-made Trinity ISOs. > > > It looks like maybe focal is the latest one? (This business of names > > > instead of release numbers isn't very friendly IMO.) Is it reasonably > > > stable? I don't want this windoze user to have a bad experience. > > > > > > Leslie > > > > Offhand -- and, keeping in mind that your intended audience is a total > > noobie -- not only a Linux virgin, but also somebody who would never be > > able to sort through some of the issues we discuss here (my recent > > networking issues come to mind, or discussions of TDE with at least a > > half-dozen different OSs -- then I would say [here he pauses for effect], > > only a couple ready-made TDE Linux discs stand out. > > > > AntiX worked quite well, was lightweight, ready from first boot for a new > > user. It wouldn't be my own choice, because it did some weird things with > > permissions inside my home folder. Also, it seemed designed for laptop > > users, and I found it difficult to create custom mount points for my > > internal hard drives. But for somebody who just wants to get used to > > running Linux, and to be able to run a good desktop, I would pick this > > for my #1. > > > > Q4OS (I think I got that name right). Again, all the basic ingredients > > were there, for a first-time Linux user, with the bonus of a good > > desktop. What I didn't like was almost from the start: I couldn't create > > my passwords by using weird characters; this distro would only accept > > alphanumeric passwords. Maybe, if I gave it more of a chance, I would > > have discovered that it could be changed or circumvented; but I was right > > away put off. > > > > All the others that I've tried so far don't deliver the experience; which > > is, we would want the user to keep using it, rather than giving up in > > despair. (And I might have missed a few good ones that are out there, > > since I haven't been actively looking at new distros, now that I have > > what I want.) > > > > As I say, not what I would choose for myself; but what I believe would > > keep a new user using Linux and TDE. > > > > Bill > > So, none of the ones in the ubuntu group? My impression is that that's > the primary platform the developers work with, and ought to be most stable? Once the fortune teller has spoken, it is bad manners to keep asking for another reading, then another, then another, for the same question, as if that will give a different fortune. ;-) Besides, I intended these choices to be, as it were, starter kits. The experienced user will naturally want something that offers more options. And range of options, infinite choices in configuration, modifications and self-hacking: these do not go together with easy-to-use starter kits. The easier to use from the start, the less the user will be able to modify the system; the easier to modify the system, then it will be harder to get started, like Debian or Devuan. It's sort of like an inverse proportion at work there. I did not consciously steer away from the 'buntus, just that none have impressed me enough to stick in the memory. These were the ones that impressed me as being ready to go, "right out of the box"; something that I would recommend for noobies. In any case, if I recall, the 'buntus have all gone the way of systemd, and this would cause other problems, or at least some conflicts, down the road. I know that AntiX is no-systemd, but I forget if Q4OS is systemd or init. If you don't know why some object to systemd, this would require some research, but the short version is that init is more established, simpler in terms of system run levels, etc. For me, anyway, it causes fewer problems than systemd. > Poking around on the internet, I see that focal is the latest LTS one. I > don't much like the password restrictions on Q4OS, and he does have several > additional drives that would need mounting from time to time, The key terms here are "from time to time"; he would mount them now and again, whereas mine are permanently mounted at boot. They are internal hard drives, and reside inside my chassis, or box; they are not external drives. > so AntiX > doesn't sound so good either. > My remark about mounting additional drives does not apply to *external* hard drives, which one can mount in the ordinary way. If your friend has external hard drives, then AntiX ought to be fine. I have 4 internal hard drives, and I tend to save to those that do not contain my home folder, so that when I made a fresh installation on a brand-new SSD, I didn't need to change anything in my setup, nor to worry about copying anything too big. But if I had to mount each of them when I needed them, I would never get anything done. They mount after my home folder is mounted, so they are always available. This would not be another person's usual setup; a machine like mine does not exist in nature otherwise, but is an abomination, so far as most geeks are concerned. As I thought I made clear, my first choice would be AntiX. It is not so different from one of the 'buntu versions. Simple, clean, fast, easy to use from first boot. One would have to be a nitpicking old crank (like myself) to object to AntiX. It's only when dug deep into it that I found things that I didn't like; also, due to my glut of internal hard drives, I have special needs. However, others may disagree. Nik seems to prefer exegnulinux, though I found that it never completely installed. You are welcome to have your own opinion, as well, as I make to claims to expertise here; I only speak from my experiences of actually trying them out. Bill