# Most beautiful Linux.



## Westside (Oct 18, 2007)

Can anyone recommend me the most beautiful version of Linux?  I would be nice if I can dual boot with Windows XP.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## JPH (Oct 18, 2007)

Most beautiful Linux?
You mean, the latest version of the OS?

Not familiar with Linux...


But with Virtual PC you can install Windows XP onto that program and it will run it so that you may have two OS running at the same time.

Not exactly a tech whiz, myself, just thought I might could help...


----------



## Westside (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(Shiro786 @ Oct 17 2007 said:


> There's no point in installing Linux for anyone.


I just thought I would enter the hax0r world. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   Seriously are there any benefits at all to Linux besides feeling 1337?


----------



## Hiratai (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(Westside @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Shiro786 @ Oct 17 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > There's no point in installing Linux for anyone.
> ...


You don't want it. I had it for 3 months and it got boring QUICKLY.


----------



## fli_guy84 (Oct 18, 2007)

Any linux distro with Compiz Fusion (comparable to Vista's Aero), is nice to look at.

If you're a beginner to linux, I suggest downloading Ubuntu 7.10 iso image (which will come out later today), burn it onto a blank CD and run (not install) the Live CD. Get a feel of what it's like and then make the decision to whether or not install it as your main OS, or dual boot it with Windows.


----------



## Alastair (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(fli_guy84 @ Oct 17 2007 said:


> Ubuntu 7.10 iso image (which will come out later today)


Thanks for the tip off. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I'm going to get that.


----------



## phoood (Oct 18, 2007)

I'm suprised that not many people have mentioned ubuntu.  except the guy above me.

ubuntu is trying to make linux more mainstream, so I guess it's both the easiest and best looking out there.


----------



## Azimuth (Oct 18, 2007)

Ubuntu is the best way to go for a beginner. The most "beautiful" linux distro would have to be dreamlinux or elive but I wouldn't recommend either one. 

If you just want to surf the net, IM and do other general stuff then stick to windows. If you are a computer enthusiast then give Linux a try, I'm sure that you'll  learn something new about computers and you'll gain a whole new perspective on operating systems.

Only attempt a move to linux when you have plenty of time and are willing to put some work into it.

@Hiratai, not trying to start a flame war but how can an OS get boring? its not a game that you finish, its a set of tools that accomplish a task.


----------



## nephdj (Oct 18, 2007)

Ubuntu

Personaly I found server 2003 to be the most fun with servers I have had (had 2 6month trials), worst was redhat since i the fact u need to reset to make changes to network, and it doesnt make u aware u need to restart (ur left scratching ur head, wondering why the changes did nothing)


----------



## Maikel Steneker (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(fli_guy84 @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> Any linux distro with Compiz Fusion (comparable to Vista's Aero), is nice to look at.
> 
> If you're a beginner to linux, I suggest downloading Ubuntu 7.10 iso image (which will come out later today), burn it onto a blank CD and run (not install) the Live CD. Get a feel of what it's like and then make the decision to whether or not install it as your main OS, or dual boot it with Windows.
> 
> ...


What they said.

Btw, why is everyone here antilinux? Linux is much better, though not all programs run.


----------



## Renegade_R (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(maikelsteneker @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> QUOTE(fli_guy84 @ Oct 18 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Any linux distro with Compiz Fusion (comparable to Vista's Aero), is nice to look at.
> ...



If its much better...wouldn't it run more programs?


----------



## living-ghost (Oct 18, 2007)

There is probably something you should know about linux if you are looking for something with a specific look and feel.

Unlike windows, linux separated its core OS from its graphical enviroment. There are more then one desktop enviroment that can be run on linux (3 big ones that I know about). So which linux is a little less of an issue when considering aesthetics.

Here is my recomendation. Start with Ubuntu has mentioned above. The default desktop enviroment is Gnome which very stable and versatile. From there you can either tinker and see if you can get it looking and feeling the way you like or quickly install the other two and switch between them until you find the one that suites you best.

installing the others is very simple just install these packages for their respective desktop enviroments
kubuntu-desktop   this is for the KDE desktop it is a little less stable then gnome in some respects but I prefer it because of a lot of its features.

xubuntu-desktop   I am going to be honest I have very little experience with this desktop enviroment I think it is called Xwin. it requires very little resources and is the most different from a windows look and feel as you can get.


----------



## TLSpartan (Oct 18, 2007)

Grab a copy of Ubuntu. Its very,very easy to use. The only thing I do not like however it the constant password input to change simple settings and installing things


----------



## Hitto (Oct 18, 2007)

Use Beryl on Ubuntu, it rocks vista's ass.


----------



## Awdofgum (Oct 18, 2007)

OpenSuse Is the best. You should try it.


----------



## flai (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(Hiratai @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Westside @ Oct 18 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(Shiro786 @ Oct 17 2007 said:
> ...



I agree, its a very, very subpar operating system. Don't use it, its only there to make the elitists feel elite.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Oct 18, 2007)

Windows programs run on Linux...through Wine


----------



## flai (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> Windows programs run on Linux...through Wine



Yeah, but its a pain in the arse to install and it doesn't work with everything. Stick with Windows or OS X, Linux still has another 20 years to go before it will be commercially ready for the standard user market.


----------



## legendofphil (Oct 18, 2007)

Linux is not user friendly, its ok if you are doing things through a GUI but via the CLI is a nightmare. Too many programs that do that same thing and guides that only apply to a certain version of linux.

I tried to turn my 2nd xbox in to a linux download machine and now I can't get the bloody thing to boot properly.


----------



## Mewgia (Oct 18, 2007)

@phil: there are a lot of current Linux distros that are very user friendly and don't require the command line at all.

One such distro is PCLinuxOS. Awesome OS, extremely easy to set up and use, extensive download repositories in Synaptic (all GUI) to get pretty much everything you need, there are tons of programs (inculding WINE and Amarok) that are already installed...I have no complaints about it except that its responsiveness to my Laptop touchpad is a litttle funky when doing some things. On a desktop it is +perfeckt

I have not tried Ubuntu or gentoo yet though I plan to in the near future. They may be better but for now I will stick with PCLOS.


----------



## legendofphil (Oct 18, 2007)

I'm doing this on an Xbox, which has very little RAM, too little for a GUI.
Also being an Xbox, there aren't many distro's that have the required kernel mods already in.


----------



## Westside (Oct 18, 2007)

I have a question.  What is FreeBSD like?  Is it based on Linux?  Is it good?


----------



## unr (Oct 18, 2007)

First off, linux if not "for l33t people only". At least not anymore. It hit mainstream quite recently and the word is already spreading. Give it a year or two, I promise you will change your views pretty quickly.

Second of all, CLI is NOT complicated. If you think that shell is scary, there are plenty of tools to help you do things in GUI mode. Yes, you will eventually need to use CLI, but it`s not that hard. `ls` to *l*i*s*t directory contents, `cd` to *c*hange *d*irectories, tab key autocompletes paths, input program name to start it. Easy.
Do an experiment: Start > run > cmd [enter], use `dir` to list contents, `cd` to move around. Not as hard as you might have imagined, eh?

If you have not heard about Linux software as much as you heard about Win programs, that does not mean that there is no software for Linux.
In the past two years I found open source alternatives for almost every Windows program I ever needed to run. Only thing lacking is Photoshop (seriously, I hear this excuse for not trying Linux way too often).
Software installation is actually easier than Windows. All you have to do is start a package manager, select packages you need installed and click `Okay`. Done.

Get Ubuntu as your first distro, you should not be disappointed.


----------



## Maikel Steneker (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(Renegade_R @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> QUOTE(maikelsteneker @ Oct 18 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(fli_guy84 @ Oct 18 2007 said:
> ...


No. The GameCube doesn't have many games, but I believe it's better than the Xbox and PS2. Maybe that's just me though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




If I can play the games I want to play and use the programs I want to use (or better alternatives) I don't really care about Windows


----------



## SynGamer (Oct 18, 2007)

OpenSUSE 10.3 with Gnome 2.0 i believe...try that.


----------



## superrob (Oct 18, 2007)

Ubuntu + Beryl mod is the ultimate eye candy!


----------



## cenotaph (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(Shiro786 @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> There's no point in installing Linux for anyone.


Yeah, no one needs Linux... I guess I'll suggest to my boss that we migrate our mission critical systems to Windows, bet they'll keep up well with the load.


----------



## Azimuth (Oct 18, 2007)

I agree, Linux is not yet ready for the general user base, although it is very close. I will consider it ready when you don't have to open a terminal ever. They are making great progress though and hopefully Linux will be ready soon.

Linux was created to replace other proprietary OSes because some people don't want to be told how to use their OS, tied down to vendor specific hardware or be dependent on another companies products. Its all about choice, freedom and community, things that are more important than money to some.

FreeBSD is berkleys branch of UNIX, Linux is a clone of UNIX. FreeBSD's license allows anyone to use the source in any way they want. Apple have benefited from this by using FreeBSD as the core of OSX.

Grab Ubuntu, whats there to lose?


----------



## cenotaph (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(Azimuth @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> I agree, Linux is not yet ready for the general user base, although it is very close. I will consider it ready when you don't have to open a terminal ever. They are making great progress though and hopefully Linux will be ready soon.
> 
> Linux was created to replace other proprietary OSes because some people don't want to be told how to use their OS, tied down to vendor specific hardware or be dependent on another companies products. Its all about choice, freedom and community, things that are more important than money to some.
> 
> ...


I don't think Linux will ever be as competent a desktop OS as Windows is. Considering how Windows is specifically targeted at desktop users (well, there's the server branch, but that's pretty much only used to centralize Windows desktop installations, so whatever) whereas Linux is developed by people working for major corporations whose interests lie in server performance on rather muscular hardware I'd say it's never going to approach Windows in terms of user experience on desktop machines.

Windows is an incompetent OS in many ways, but you can't deny its user friendliness and that Microsoft has succeeded rather well with creating an intuitive GUI people can understand.

Also, I believe Darwin was forked from NetBSD (as it has a more developed PPC branch) rather than FreeBSD. Edit: other sources tell me it's a mishmash of NetBSD/FreeBSD/NeXTSTEP-code.


----------



## living-ghost (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(unr69 @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> First off, linux if not "for l33t people only". At least not anymore. It hit mainstream quite recently and the word is already spreading. Give it a year or two, I promise you will change your views pretty quickly.
> 
> Second of all, CLI is NOT complicated. If you think that shell is scary, there are plenty of tools to help you do things in GUI mode. Yes, you will eventually need to use CLI, but it`s not that hard. `ls` to *l*i*s*t directory contents, `cd` to *c*hange *d*irectories, tab key autocompletes paths, input program name to start it. Easy.
> Do an experiment: Start > run > cmd [enter], use `dir` to list contents, `cd` to move around. Not as hard as you might have imagined, eh?
> ...



Have you tried Gimp as a photo shop replacement?


----------



## Azimuth (Oct 18, 2007)

Well, its true that windows is very user friendly but the advances Linux has made in the past couple of years have been amazing. By extrapolating I would approximate a viable alternative to windows in the next 2 years. It will still be rough around the edges but most people will be able to use it on a day-to-day basis.

UI has nothing to do with the kernel, its a whole other beast. If they continue work on KDE/GNOME/XFCE they will soon be as usable as windows.

Darwin is a combination of NextStep and FreeBSD, NextStep uses BSD Unix code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)


----------



## unr (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Windows is an incompetent OS in many ways, but you can't deny its user friendliness and that Microsoft has succeeded rather well with creating an intuitive GUI people can understand.
> Microsoft achieved that by sacrificing functionality and freedom of choice.
> Since Linux can be customized for any possible situation (from multimedia center to microwave) people see it as a long maze with dozen entrances and one exit. What they need to realize is that there are Linux distributions that can turn this maze into a straightforward path.
> Linux is only the core. Everything else (console, GUI, etc) are ordinary programs that revolve around the kernel and use functionality it provides. Distributions only differ in installed programs and their configurations. What this means is that no matter what distro you choose, it is possible to turn it into your very own and unique experience.
> ...


Yeah, I use it pretty often, however it lacks many features photoshop has.


----------



## CrEsPo (Oct 18, 2007)

Linux doesn't lack programs, Windows is the one that lacks programs. For every Windows program you have you can find a Linux alternative that does the exact same thing. With the addition of having more alternatives for programs it gives you, the user, more flexibility on what software you want to use on your system.

Obviously Windows software isn't going to run (natively) on Linux. It's the same thing as saying that Windows software would run on a Mac. In the end Linux is just another OS and it's all down to personal preference. Some prefer Windows while others prefer Linux. Just because some of you don't know how to make Linux function properly doesn't mean it "sucks". On the contrary, once you learn how to use Linux properly it can become quite powerful.


----------



## cenotaph (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(Azimuth @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> UI has nothing to do with the kernel, its a whole other beast. If they continue work on KDE/GNOME/XFCE they will soon be as usable as windows.
> 
> I wasn't referring to the UI, but other stuff you'll notice when running desktop systems. Like, CPU- and I/O scheduling (which are currently rather server optimized. The CFS scheduler in 2.6.23 is a start for a better desktop experience, though), among other things.
> 
> ...


Yes, but only as far as kernel functionality goes. And if you spent some time studying the Linux kernel, you'd see most functionality - even though it might be useful on desktop platforms - is, as mentioned, rather server optimized and not as efficient as it would be had it been specifically targeted for desktops.


----------



## enarky (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE(living-ghost @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> Have you tried Gimp as a photo shop replacement?


Never ever used Photoshop, I only use Gimp.

And Linux _is_ ready for the Mainstream Desktop. It is *you* who is to lazy to learn how things work in the Linux world. *You* had a lifetime to learn how Microsoft products work, but *you* won't give Linux a measly three months to learn even the most basic principles. How else can this be called than lazy?

And please, don't start with your ill Grandmother that will never learn how to do anything with Linux! That's _the same_ Person that will never learn jackshit about Windows. The same person whose PC you'll have to delouse regularly 'cause it's infested with trojan horses and worms, because they didn't fucking learn *not* to click on that pr0n.jpg.exe attachment. These.people.will.never.learn. It doesn't matter if they'll never learn on a windows machine or a linux machine.


----------



## Azimuth (Oct 18, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> I wasn't referring to the UI, but other stuff you'll notice when running desktop systems. Like, CPU- and I/O scheduling (which are currently rather server optimized. The CFS scheduler in 2.6.23 is a start for a better desktop experience, though), among other things.
> 
> Also, I find the notion that you believe I for a minute confused user- and kernel space rather insulting, thank you.
> 
> ...



You know that you can custom compile a kernel right? Just strip out the parts you don't need and include only those things that your system needs.


----------



## unr (Oct 19, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> No really, dude. The two elements - user friendliness and functionality - are polar, yes. A purely desktop centered OS can afford sacrificing a larger amount of functionality for usability as it's never used by the intended target audience. This is an advantage in my opinion as unnecessary functionality is more a liability than anything else, as any sysadmin would know.
> Vast customization options allow to twist and bend linux to infinity.
> More advanced users will be satisfied with ability to recompile kernel with only needed functionality and squeeze everything out of their hardware that way.
> Casual users will enjoy being able to customize desktop environment in ways unimaginable to windows users.
> ...


Linux gives ABILITY to fiddle with it`s most intimate settings, but that does not mean it is NECESSARY. I will repeat myself: Linux is only kernel. Developers make whatever they want out of it. There are distros that are server-optimized, there are also distros that are desktop-optimized.


----------



## Mewgia (Oct 19, 2007)

QUOTE(Azimuth @ Oct 18 2007 said:


> I agree, Linux is not yet ready for the general user base, although it is very close. I will consider it ready when you don't have to open a terminal ever. They are making great progress though and hopefully Linux will be ready soon.


I don't know about other distros, but the only time I -ever- had to open the terminal in PCLinuxOS was when I tried to install cTorrent (my computer is ghey and slow and when I try to run Amarok, firefox, and Azueres all at once it lags like hell, a kTorrent is banned on blackcats) there are huge download repositories already set up for the easy download of literally thousands of applications and a few games.  Everything else is controlled though the PCLOS Control Center and a couple of other things that are conveniently located on the taskbar by default (and in the start menu). Again, I have not yet tried other distros (I plan on trying Ubuntu 7.1 and Gentoo soon) but I HIGHLY recommend PCLinuxOS for people of all skill level.


----------



## cenotaph (Oct 19, 2007)

QUOTE(unr69 @ Oct 19 2007 said:


> Vast customization options allow to twist and bend linux to infinity.
> More advanced users will be satisfied with ability to recompile kernel with only needed functionality and squeeze everything out of their hardware that way.
> Casual users will enjoy being able to customize desktop environment in ways unimaginable to windows users.
> Here is what I made out of my desktop: clicky (show-off moment)
> ...


You're not getting my point. *I* will repeat myself: Linux is primarily engineered for server platforms. Thus, features that might benefit desktop users as well as server users will end up being tailored more for servers (check kernel mailing lists if you want examples of how performance in various benchmarks affects kernel development). Why is it that we haven't had a fair CPU scheduler until recently? Perhaps you're getting what I'm trying to say now.

I wasn't going to post again in this topic seeing as this is going nowhere, but went against my better judgement. With risk of being labeled as deserting in lack of proper support for what I'm proposing; unless someone contributes something significant, this is my last post. If you want to advocate Linux on desktops, go on. I think efforts should go into something that's aimed at desktops from the very beginning instead - not necessarily MS Windows, but rather something like Syllable or Haiku (decedent of BeOS).


----------



## Hitto (Oct 19, 2007)

Guys, my mom uses Ubuntu. I tricked her into switching after I told her "openoffice" was the name of the new version of microsoft office. Photoshop -> gimp, IE->firexox, thunderbird she used already. There you go, migration complete.
She finds it much easier to use than having to launch spybot S&D, AVG antivirus, updating spywareblaster, and being worried sick everytime one of her dumbass friends mails her a powerpoint or flash file.

Most of you people who say "linux is not a desktop OS" DO NOT KNOW ONE *NORMAL* PERSON. Get out of your fucking basements.
Just Kidding, I love both windows and linux


----------



## unr (Oct 19, 2007)

Linux kernel is being developed to be stable and compatible with all sorts of hardware. You could argue that this is becouse it is targeted solely for servers, but stability is an issue for desktop users too.
I don`t really see what kernel even has to do with user friendliness. Stock kernels tend to perform very well on most machines. In fact I am using archlinux`s default i686-optimized kernel (constantly updated of course) for almost two years already and I didn`t have any issues at all. Sure, I could disable all the unneccessary stuff and get 200% of what Windows could give me with this hardware, but I am happy with 170% I already get. I do not think reapplying patches and manually recompiling kernel image after every update is worth my time. I let package manager take care of keeping me up to date.

Linux/BSD is de facto standard for most servers. Most mission-critical machines run on some kind of UNIX-family OS.
This is what Linux was focused on right from the beginning and continues to do so til today.
However, "server-optimized" does not imply "desktop-unusable". With correct packaging Linux can appeal to anybody, from kindergardeners to older folk. 
Linux always supported freedom of choice. If you don`t like something in a system - either get a replacement that does the same thing in a way you like or get rid of it at all.

Linux IS ready for home use. More and more people salute Linux after making "the switch". Haters are usually people that have no knowledge of what this "Leenuks" thing is or have tried it for around 20 secs before wiping it out of hard drive using Mr. Proper Â. Learning takes time, don`t expect knowledge to be implanted into your brain on the first boot, matrix-style.

However, to contradict myself, Linux IS NOT for everybody. 
If you:
* Have no will to learn how to use this OS
* Are happy enough with Windows
...by all means, stay with Win. There`s no need to increase "Linsux" crowd any more.


----------



## Azimuth (Oct 19, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> about other distros, but the only time I -ever- had to open the terminal in PCLinuxOS was when I tried to install cTorrent
> 
> Well wasn't that my point, you had to open up the terminal to do an install. In windows everything can be handled via GUI. Try configuring a video card or any other hardware in Linux and I guarantee you'll have to pop open a terminal.
> 
> ...


I don't mean to sound elitist but desktop distros like PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu are loaded with stuff that most people don't use, most skilled users can't stand bloat and usually use a more bare-bones distro(like slacks). They also use SysV-init scripts which are gross.

BeOS/Haiku are the fastest OSes I have ever used but a single user mode scares me. Linux already has excellent driver support and documentation which would have to be ported over to another platform, all that work won't pay off in the end.

I hope that this will be my last post in this thread.


----------



## Mewgia (Oct 19, 2007)

QUOTE(Azimuth @ Oct 19 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


true true, I haven't really tried to install much other stuff and Windows does do everything via GUI.

And I get your point about it being loaded with a lot of stuff that people don't use.

I'll have to try out those two distros sometime on my laptop.


----------



## mikeosoft (Oct 19, 2007)

lemme just throw in my two cents:

truth be told; people want customization Until they realize ultimate customization at their fingertips comes at a price: Customization takes time and learning.  Linux offers total customization.  People want to feel total customization within a set bounds.  For example, people like to move where the startup bar is on xp and vista all the time.  Now they get overwelmed when they realize in linux that not only can they move the bar around to the left side or right, they can change the appearance, the location of the start and so forth.  And this scares people and turns newbies off because with total customization comes a need to learn and get good at a certian niche.  most users don't have the time to spend learning new ways to handle and control linux.  

Now this is the paradox every GUI designer faces in the future, whether it's a graphical application or an actual UI device like a wiimote.  People are frightened of new things.  A slight change in Vista appearance from XP causes mass histeria and anger from alot of the working world.  




I love linux, i enjoy ubuntu and fedora.  I've showed my roomates and got them live discs, but it takes an enthusiast to really learn how they want to use linux.


----------



## CrEsPo (Oct 19, 2007)

QUOTE(Azimuth @ Oct 19 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I beg to differ. Although I'm a fan of using CLI, I know there is a ton of utilities out there that will let you do configuration via GUI. If you use Ubuntu you can install files via a double-click like you do in Windows. I also remember seeing a package manager (I think it's Autopackage) that acts exactly like Windows installers.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 19, 2007)

QUOTE(Westside @ Oct 17 2007 said:


> Can anyone recommend me the most beautiful version of Linux?Â I would be nice if I can dual boot with Windows XP.Â Thanks in advance.




Ku-Ubuntu (Ubuntu with GNOME and KDE [uses GDM])


----------



## joe_user (Oct 19, 2007)

QUOTE(Azimuth @ Oct 19 2007 said:


> I don't mean to sound elitist but desktop distros like PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu are loaded with stuff that most people don't use, most skilled users can't stand bloat and usually use a more bare-bones distro(like slacks). They also use SysV-init scripts which are gross.
> 
> BeOS/Haiku are the fastest OSes I have ever used but a single user mode scares me. Linux already has excellent driver support and documentation which would have to be ported over to another platform, all that work won't pay off in the end.
> 
> I hope that this will be my last post in this thread.


Using Linux for over 10 years, beeing a senior developer myself, so I claim to have some computer skills. You know what? I switched to Ubuntu two years ago. Why? Because I just want an OS that works. Had Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, aso before. It was a great learning experience. But with time, you just want something that works. Ubuntu is a great example for that. There are for sure others. Play around with it. If you like it, stick with it. If not, try something different. With Linux, you have the CHOICE.


----------



## pikachucrackpipe (Oct 20, 2007)

QUOTE(Westside @ Oct 17 2007 said:


> Can anyone recommend me the most beautiful version of Linux?Â I would be nice if I can dual boot with Windows XP.Â Thanks in advance.



imo fedora looks the best but ubuntu apparently is the peoples choice
you can change it up anyway you want though


----------

