Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Linux Live CDs: All the Linux with None of the Commitment

Filed under
Linux

If you’ve been itching to try Linux but have been wary about partitioning your hard drive or otherwise afraid to commit the time and space to another operating system, the good news is you don’t have to risk anything to experience Linux. For quite some time, Linux distributions have been made available in live CD format, decompressing data on-the-fly and running entirely from memory. Not only can you try different flavors of Linux, but you can often use the live CD to install the software if you really like it.

And if that wasn’t enough, specialized live distros can run from business card-sized CDs, USB thumb drives, and some that are intended as rescue CDs for virus-ridden PCs. There are even live routers and firewalls in case you want to use an older PC as your main connection to the Internet. You can also just boot a Linux Live CD to try out the games, OpenOffice.org, or the GIMP image editor without installing them. Because OpenOffice.org and the GIMP are both available for Windows, it’s a great opportunity to see whether you like them before you install them on your Windows PC. And in the event your Windows installation goes bad, you can even use a Live CD to rescue or otherwise back up files from your hard drive.

There are plenty of reasons to try a Linux live CD. In addition to the above, it’s a great way to experience a different desktop environment...

Full Article.

I don't get it.

I use Live CD's as diag tools or to test various hardware for Linux compatibility, but actual use one as a desktop OS - no way!

I'm talking about running them on modern, pretty high-end systems (big cpu, fast cd/dvd, lots o ram) and of course they are all dog slow. Who in their right mind would use one as a real system? I think it turns people OFF from using Linux because the experience is so lame.

Do your non-Linux friends a favor, recommend (or help install it yourself) a dual-boot system NOT a slooooooooooooooooooooow Linux Live CD endurance lesson.

Re: I don't get it.

vonskippy wrote:

Who in their right mind would use one as a real system? I think it turns people OFF from using Linux because the experience is so lame.

Do your non-Linux friends a favor, recommend (or help install it yourself) a dual-boot system NOT a slooooooooooooooooooooow Linux Live CD endurance lesson.

I don't know, a lot of windows folks are quite intimidated by the whole partitioning and trying to install thing.

I've tested a couple that ran fairly okay from livecd. Of course they do much better loaded into ram. Perhaps if more of the livecds checked for how much ram is available and if enough, automagically loaded in toram it would make for better experiences.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more