Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I'm curious about the difference in the two of these. I know Arch is often totted as the 'more advanced users' distro that you build from the ground up. But I didn't care to much for Arch, I've tried it a few times and just don't care for it, I really enjoy Debian based distros, which brings me to my question.
Ubuntu has a really large community and its a very nice distro, it just has a lot of fat added in to make it more user friendly. Thats fine and dandy but I'm curious about doing a CLI install and just installing the packages I need (a la Debian Net install)
What are the pros and cons of doing this over just using the Debian net install and going from there? I know the Ubuntu forums have more posts but I'd venture a guess most of them are duplicate or even triplicate "this doesnt work" posts
I'm personally leaning towards Debian, as it seems if you are going to do the work you might as well go with the foundation
I'm curious about the difference in the two of these. I know Arch is often totted as the 'more advanced users' distro that you build from the ground up. But I didn't care to much for Arch, I've tried it a few times and just don't care for it, I really enjoy Debian based distros, which brings me to my question.
Ubuntu has a really large community and its a very nice distro, it just has a lot of fat added in to make it more user friendly. Thats fine and dandy but I'm curious about doing a CLI install and just installing the packages I need (a la Debian Net install)
...
I think Debian net install, or Ubuntu similar, are mented to be installed withow demanding too much hardware and maybe time. But once installed (at least for Ubuntu), you will have to install the graphic environment also manually.
I have never used Arch, but am a big fan of the Debian family and recoment. Debian is a little more needy in customization and configuration, but once you are done, its rock-solid. Ubuntu is more friendly in this sense, yes.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.