Mac user turns Linux ?

I've been a Mac user for nearly 15 years now and still love the system.
However, I've been trying out different Linux distros in Virtual Box over the past year and I feel like a kid in a candy store. So much choice, it's unbelievable.

With a Mac, everything's plug and play, and quite frankly, I'm getting a bit bored with the whole thing.
I know that with Linux, you have to pop the hood open from time to time, but I'm not bothered about that since I've learned a thing or two about the command line in OS X.

Now, as a newbie, I thought that Ubuntu (or a derivative like Mint) would be a good starting point.
The real challenge, however, is finding the right laptop. A machine where everything just works.
I would love a System76, but I live in Belgium and there are no official retailers over here. System76 ships to Belgium but I'd be facing import taxes, and what if something goes wrong, what about warranty, etc..

So I've given up on System76 and am now looking at different brands.
I've been told that my best option would either be Lenovo or Dell since they're supposedly the most Linux compatible.
I'm not particular about any brand (except Packard Bell, I've heard they're absolute crap), so if anyone can recommend a particular brand or model, I'm all ears.

Here's what I'm aiming for :
- 17" Full HD
- 1Tb HDD (either normal HDD or hybrid drive with a self-optimised SSD cache i.e. the caching doesn't need software in the OS but is managed by the HDD controller)
- DVD drive is not necessary, since I have an external USB drive, and I would probably replace it with a SSD anyway.
- nVidia graphics (they supposedly run better in linux)
- Backlit keyboard that works in linux (I could live without it, I guess, but still I'd prefer to have one)
- Not looking for a metal encasing, just a sturdy machine
- Price tag that doesn't break the bank

Looking forward to your answers !

 

Dell m6700 or m6800 perfectly fits your needs.

There is a sticky in "Which laptop should I buy."
Fill it out and more people will be able to help you.

 

Bit too expensive for my taste...

Will do...

 

Why wouldn't you install Linux directly on your Mac?

 

Along with rEFInd, that sort of thing.

It's absolutely an alternative if you own a Mac with just the integrated intel graphics, and so on. You lose some of the hardware buttons. Then again, it's a good alternative to buy an older, sleek model with an apu, and just run linux on that - for example. That will let you use extremely good libraries for hardware decode/video playback, use 3d effects without draining the battery, have all kinds of stuff really cheap along with it.. I mean, a "slow" system with an ssd running Mint is fantastic for office-work, programming, general non-gaming stuff..

Just as an alternative. The 6z sleekbooks are going really cheap, for example. Newer aspires. The silent 14 inch Thinkpads are good picks, though not always perfectly supported (nor do they come with apus in many configs.. or they're rare..).

But as said^ - make a request thread where you specify the kind of usage you're looking for (i.e., stuff short of patching fifty overlays in Vegas&realtime encode of hd streams), and you'll get good suggestions. People around here know their things, got to say.

 

I will start with laptop, and then – more importantly – share some thoughts about your linux choice.

Lenovo ThinkPads. They are as close to linux-designed laptop as you can get without actually getting a linux-designed laptop. Plus, they are the best laptops I have ever used. And I used many. The engineering, solutions, equipment, durability, typing experience – I would not exchange it for anything I had my hands on over the last 8 years.

- you can get ThinkPad W700 to W730 with your required resolution, while keeping it mate, and non-reflective. If you get a used one, they will be cheap. There are many ebay sellers on ebay.de who sell after-lease ThinkPads from banks, etc. I got W500 this way and it was nearly as new.
- in ThinkPads, you can replace CDROM with UltraBay second HDD. So you can have SSD as your system drive, and a HDD as your data drive. That is what I am doing now and it flies. Not sure, but maybe W7x0 series even has built-in extra HDD bay
- ATI used to be so-so on linux, but in the last weeks/months, open source drivers got extremely good. Of course you need to run a rolling distro to take advantage of it, so chew on that Ubuntu (more on it later). So I would not write off a laptop even if it had an ATI card. Plus, Nvidia has its on problems, and as of today, their Open Source drivers are quite behind ATI. But NV's propietriary drivers are OK.
- ThinkPads have backlit. It is not dependent on the OS. Older ThinkPads have ThinkLight instead.
- ThinkPad and “strudy” are synonyms
- get an after-lease one, you will pay peanuts




Now, about your choice of Linux distro...

I strongly advise you not to go into Ubuntu or its derivatives. Ubuntu is aimed at people not much more computer literate than average Mac user.

For having everything spoon-fed to you, you pay by:
a – not being able to choose WHEN to eat. Say, you get hungry at midday, or prefer to eat tiny portions several times a day. Well, tough, cause feeding time is only at daybreak and nightfall.
b - not being able to choose WHAT to eat. You have to eat what your babysitter stuffs your face with, no matter if it is fat-dripping cheeseburger, or a mouldy potato.

Ubuntu is like Windows Vista of Linux world. It was my first linux system and after 1.5 year with it, I relapsed to Window for another year, because I could not stand Ubuntu any more for the above reasons.

Best case scenario, you will get into Ubuntu cause it's famous, shiny and easy (deceptively), accept it for what it is, and after 1-3 years when you want to move on, you'll have to re-learn... no, scratch that, _LEARN_ everything (cause you won't learn much on Ubuntu), and because Ubuntu it is only getting further and further away from the actual Linux world (upstart, Mir, etc, etc).

If you want to see an example of what is extra cool, useful and easy to do on Arch, but prohibitively difficult and very dangerous on Ubuntu, read this: http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...434-how-make-5400rpm-hdd-faster-than-ssd.html

Summarising, Ubuntu is NOT a good starting point. It is a good getting-stuck-in-mud point.


Instead, I suggest something else. You sound like just the kind of person who should get into Arch Linux. Here is why:

1 – for most people, Arch is the final destination on the distro hopping adventure, not just another hop point. And it doesn't matter how advanced they are. Why? Because you can make it exactly what you want it to be, and once you are done, it will last you for years.
In Ubuntu, it is a major PITA and time waste to make it at least a little bit the way you want/need it, and still every 6 months there is a very, very, very good chance that all your hard work will be completely undone by system update.

2 – virtually every program available on whatever linux, you can install on Arch with just one single command. And it will always be in absolutely newest version (not alpha or beta, unless you want it). You don't have to wait 6 months to 2 years just to have one stupid bug fixed, like you do in Ubuntu.

3 – because the system in Arch is made only of what you want and need, it is stupid fast and will run circles around the same machine running stock Ubuntu.

4 – contrary to popular false belief of people who don't actually know Arch, Arch does not require you to be a linux guru in order to install and use it. Arch has _the best_ help wiki among all linux distributions (yes, including the outdated Ubuntu wiki), and installing it while looking at the Beginner install guide on your phone takes maybe 15 minutes, if you know nothing of command line.


Now, you could go into one of Arch derivatives like Bridge Linux, or Manjaro, which start you up with pre-installed desktop environment. It is worth trying it out as liveCD to see what Arch is like, but I wouldn't build my system on it. At the benefit of saving 3 minutes during installation (to install Desktop Env, with one command), you will lose Arch forums support and access to current Arch repositories for as long as you are running this system.
But hey, it still beats Ubuntu, so if you have to, go for Bridge. At least it uses same repos.

If you are still unconvinced, google “Liunux Action Show Arch challenge”. It's a linux show made by two guys, who just one week before that were very sceptical about Arch, and then actually installed and used it for a week... well, see for yourself.

 

^ Debian has all the benefits of arch, but with the familiarity of ubuntu. It also has 3 repos, stable testing and unstable, so you can choose which level of stability vs bleeding edge you want. Free and nonfree repos can be split. Also, it is compatible (to a certain degree) with Ubuntu's PPA system. Also if you need the true bleeding edge, there is experimental.

Debian's documentation is also top notch and backed by 20 years of community edeavor.

I used arch for 1 month before giving up on it, Debian is just amazing and i've been using it for the past 3 years, i won't even touch another distro.

 

Well, if there was no Arch, I would probably use Debian. It is a great distro, and it's true that if you go "testing" then you are kind-of bleeding edge.

But because Debian is designed to be steady, the bleeding edge version is a bolt-on. The official Arch is designed to be bleeding edge and therefore Arch will give you much less headaches than bleeding edge Debian Testing, while probably still winning also in terms of modernity.

I mean, it's in the name - Debian Testing. Arch also had a "testing version" (if you use testing repo instead of the main one), but the difference is that:

Arch with testing repo - hurting edge. You get packets that are in alpha and beta versions. Great if you really know what you're doing but not many use it for their main machine.
Arch - designed from the ground up to be cutting edge and work perfectly this way. Ultra-up-to-date, probably best wiki in the world of linux. And AUR > PPAs. In every aspect.
Debian Testing - slightly less up-to-date than Arch (Arch virtually is upstream ), less stability and no support (the amazing Debian pedigree is for Debian Stable, and maybe Sid, but does not apply, as is, to Testing). You got Testing, well, then you asked for it.
Debian Sid - somewhere in between Stable and Testing.
Debian Stable - like Ubuntu, not a rolling distro (a huge minus for me). Great support, but you can wait 1-2 years for packet versions that are available in Arch 3 hours after they have been released. It's superb for a server, or enterprise machine, but not for a desktop of a user aspiring to be a power user and to gradually learn more and more about Linux.

And yes - Debian has 20 years of Documentation. But how much of it is up to date and applies to today's world? Linux changes very rapidly, and it will continue to change only more rapidly. It is no coincidence that if you google for some generic linux-related question, usually Arch wiki comes up as 1st or 2nd result. It is hard to see Debian wiki anywhere near the top, or even on the first page of the results. Arch Wiki is not just massive, but written in a very pragmatic, practical way (can't say that about dry, manpage-like style of Debian wiki), and because of the nature of the distribution, solutions in Arch Wiki are most up-to-date.

So I do not agree that Debian has all the benefits of Arch, because even when it comes close (Testing), the cost of those benefits is higher.

Additionally, OP wrote

If he didn't, I would probably suggest Debian Stable (maybe Sid), or... hell, maybe even Mint.
But he did wrote it, and that's why in my opinion Arch is ideal for him.


That is not to say that if he goes for Debian, he will be screwed. He definitely won't, because Debian is great (and will stay great if it adopts systemd rather than upstart - this uncertainty is another reason to hesitate over Debian).
What is key here is that he doesn't get stuck in Ubuntu.

 

Before you even continue, try to at least get the names right.

Stable = Wheezy - Server-Grade
Testing = Jessie - Mixed balance of stability and novelty
Sid = Unstable - Bleeding Edge (no alpha software, however)
And there is Experimental, - Cutting Edge (alpha/beta software)

Debian Testing and Unstable are two different beasts, i'm not sure how you managed to get them screwed up. Unstable is what you mentioned as testing and is also known as Sid. The Unstable distro is never fully tested (just like Arch's regular) to a server grade level, and never has a set release, and thus new packages are added constantly.

Debian Testing is the WIP of the next stable distribution, where packages are pulled out of Unstable/Sid, and then vigourously tested until they are put in the Stable distribution. In fact, Debian testing is the debian repo which recieves the most fixes, because it aims for a mix between being rolling release and server-grade stable.

Debian stable is amazingly stable, but quite old. Still the best choice for a server, amongst CentOS and the likes.

Also, Debian Experimental is one step higher than Sid/Unstable, which is then similar to Arch testing.

And if you think Unstable/Sid is just a bunch of loosely thrown packages, i will let you know it is the base for Ubuntu and it's derivatives, which includes Mint.

Debian -- Debian Releases

Hard to find the Debian wiki? Go to their site, click support, then Wiki. Or head to Wiki.Debian.Org.

 

One not-so-small correction here:

The only W7** series were W700/ds and W701/ds, there never was a W720 or W730, nor will there ever be one. And these machines are far from inexpensive given their vintage.

W500 is a whole another ballgame and I agree that it can be obtained for a very reasonable amount nowadays.

 

Debian experimental is not a full distro, just a repo of packages that you can install or pin. I run sid but pin some packages from experimental, like iceweasel before a major release. I would call experimental the bolt-on, not testing or sid/unstable. These are real, full distros that you can run all day every day. The difference between (pre-freeze) testing and unstable is the amount of time that it takes for packages to be automatically promoted to testing from unstable after having no RC bugs. Unstable will be a rough ride during major transitions, but if you read the mailing lists and use apt-listbugs most major pain can be avoided.

Documentation is updated with every stable release.

 

My bad, I got the names of Testing/Sid and experimental wrong. However, it doesn't change the essence of my post, which - in general - your last post repeated in different words.

That's not what I said.

Again, I said no such thing. I suggest you reread that section of my post.

ajkula66, thanks for clearing it up. I was never into 17" ThinkPads so I extrapolated from what I know about W5x0 series.

But that got me curious why did Lenovo discontinue W7x0 series?

 

My understanding - which might be incorrect - is that the sales were poor. These machines cost $6K+ when new in the U.S. and I don't even want to imagine what the prices were in Europe.

I believe that less than 100K units total were produced, which makes them reasonably rare when compared with other laptops from the same era.

They also maintain somewhat of a cult following, and a well-kept W701 can bring $1500 if one has patience to wait for the right buyer.

In my neck of the woods, one could buy 5 reasonably-spec'd W500 units in comparable condition for that amount of money.

The prestige of owning a W70*/ds unit comes with a price premium.

Having said all of that, they are very fine and well-built machines that are still usable today.

Being no more than a recreational Linux user myself I can't say how *nix friendly they are, but would certainly like to try it out...