LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 11-08-2013, 06:01 PM   #16
Manganus
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: San Fernando de Maspalomas
Distribution: Mint
Posts: 38

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Germany_chris View Post
I have Arch and Cinnamon..
I guess I'll have to try out Arch on some of the retired laptops (Thinkpad T22, T23, T41, T60). Now, that I've found the Universal USB Installer.

The Windows-7 installation (and update) lasted almost two hours despite SSD and a fairly fast internet connection.

Installing linux Mint (Cinnamon) and Google Chrome was done i no time at all.
(Making Skype function, on the other hand, was more of a challenge. Another day!)
 
Old 11-08-2013, 07:02 PM   #17
TroN-0074
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: Michigan USA
Distribution: OpenSUSE 13.2 64bit-Gnome on ASUS U52F
Posts: 1,444

Rep: Reputation: 340Reputation: 340Reputation: 340Reputation: 340
Install Arch in a virtualbox, that can be fun, pace yourself and no hurries have fun. good to hear you got Linux Mint up and running

Good luck
 
Old 11-09-2013, 12:38 AM   #18
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Germany_chris View Post
I'm going to be the dissenter. Windows is big fat and bloated, you do not want the the Linux equivalent of that. Arch is not all that difficult to install no matter what the archers think. Easy to use Linux distros will be fat, Slack is fat evenafter it's trimmed. If you want light and Debian do crunchbang, light Arch and dead simple to install ArchbBang. I personally wouldn't give up pacman for anything If it cannot fit on a CD (looking at you Slack) don't install it.
Slackware is 'fat'? Bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
Arch is tempting, but I need kind of guarantees for basic functionality. I can't afford to find myself without a working "typewriter" and internet browser. And I would hate to be stuck with Windows-7 on this mashine, now when I think of W strictly as a back up and safety net, only.
Then dont get arch.

In general, rolling release distros have more risk in doing an update than point release distros. You'll d/l a lot more packages with any rolling release distro. Its called 'the bleeding edge' for a reason. As far as arch goes, you are more likely to get 'RTFM' and 'not our fault, your fault' replies if you ask about problems than other rolling release distros.

Arch FAQ-

Quote:
Q) Why would I not want to use Arch?
you do not want a bleeding edge, rolling release GNU/Linux distribution.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...to_use_Arch.3F

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php..._so_many_words

Quote:
Therefore, it is the user who is ultimately responsible for the stability of his own rolling release system. The user decides when to upgrade, and merges necessary changes when required. If the user reaches out to the community for help, it is often provided in a timely manner. The difference between Arch and other distributions in this regard is that Arch is truly a 'do-it-yourself' distribution; complaints of breakage are misguided and unproductive, since upstream changes are not the responsibility of Arch devs.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...nt_breakage.3F

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
So in the end, it turns out that I'll go with Mint.
And since I was used to Gnome some 15 years ago, I start trying out Cinnamon.
Gnome from 1997 is nothing like Cinnamon.

Try out a few different desktops as well as media players.

If you are just using the system for writing, a bit of internet and media playing, you'd do better to get a feel for the different desktops and programs then decide which desktop to use based on what programs you like (eg, if you like GTK, use gnome, xfce, lxde, if you like QT, use KDE, razor-qt)
 
Old 11-09-2013, 12:47 AM   #19
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636
Skype works in Debian, I know I use it daily! I must admit though I haven't tried the video chat. The only trouble you might come across installing Skype in Debian is if you're not setup for multiarch. If you're not set up for multiarch you will get a few broken or missing dependency messages.
 
Old 11-09-2013, 05:58 AM   #20
Germany_chris
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,027

Rep: Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Slackware is 'fat'? Bias.



Then dont get arch.

In general, rolling release distros have more risk in doing an update than point release distros. You'll d/l a lot more packages with any rolling release distro. Its called 'the bleeding edge' for a reason. As far as arch goes, you are more likely to get 'RTFM' and 'not our fault, your fault' replies if you ask about problems than other rolling release distros.

Arch FAQ-



https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...to_use_Arch.3F

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php..._so_many_words



https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...nt_breakage.3F



Gnome from 1997 is nothing like Cinnamon.

Try out a few different desktops as well as media players.

If you are just using the system for writing, a bit of internet and media playing, you'd do better to get a feel for the different desktops and programs then decide which desktop to use based on what programs you like (eg, if you like GTK, use gnome, xfce, lxde, if you like QT, use KDE, razor-qt)
Dude it's over 4 GB trimmed you can shave it to ~3.6 it's fat.
 
Old 11-09-2013, 06:50 AM   #21
Manganus
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: San Fernando de Maspalomas
Distribution: Mint
Posts: 38

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Once again, Thank you, all of you! for the valuable input!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
In general, rolling release distros have more risk in doing an update than point release distros. You'll d/l a lot more packages with any rolling release distro. Its called 'the bleeding edge' for a reason. As far as arch goes, you are more likely to get 'RTFM' and 'not our fault, your fault' replies if you ask about problems than other rolling release distros.
I'm sure you're right!

With regard to RTFM, too.

On the other hand:
My thinking is that if my needs are humble, why should I have lots of packages installed that I don't use?

Wouldn't the required updates be less demanding if I use the laptop almost as a Chromebook?



Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Gnome from 1997 is nothing like Cinnamon.
I'm a human. Humans choose with gut feelings and other emotions.

I had to make a choice. That choice had to be made with a rather sketchy understanding of the alternatives. I considered Cinnamon, MATE, KDE and Xfce. Although my usual instincts would tell me to prefer anything that's considered lightweight, in this case I came to decide for (starting out with) Cinnamon. And the chief reason was that the look on screenshots made me feel somewhat at home - reminding me, I belive, of my earlier Unix experiences.

Actually, I'm rather serious here.
I ask: How should I make my brain to remember that little Unix that I used to know, quite a long time ago?

And my idea is that using a desktop that have more of a look and feel of that I used back then, than of other environments that I've been using before and after, then my brain would be given the best possible circumstances.


Additionally, and here I may be totally wrong, it seemed to me that Cinnamon is more actively developed. If that is due to Xfce being close to perfect, whereas Cinnamon has been in dire need of bug fixes, is beyond my judging capacity.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
If you are just using the system for writing, a bit of internet and media playing, you'd do better to get a feel for the different desktops and programs then decide which desktop to use based on what programs you like (eg, if you like GTK, use gnome, xfce, lxde, if you like QT, use KDE, razor-qt)
This is most likely a very good advice!
 
Old 11-09-2013, 11:20 AM   #22
Germany_chris
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,027

Rep: Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
Once again, Thank you, all of you! for the valuable input!


I'm sure you're right!

With regard to RTFM, too.

On the other hand:
My thinking is that if my needs are humble, why should I have lots of packages installed that I don't use?

Wouldn't the required updates be less demanding if I use the laptop almost as a Chromebook?




I'm a human. Humans choose with gut feelings and other emotions.

I had to make a choice. That choice had to be made with a rather sketchy understanding of the alternatives. I considered Cinnamon, MATE, KDE and Xfce. Although my usual instincts would tell me to prefer anything that's considered lightweight, in this case I came to decide for (starting out with) Cinnamon. And the chief reason was that the look on screenshots made me feel somewhat at home - reminding me, I belive, of my earlier Unix experiences.

Actually, I'm rather serious here.
I ask: How should I make my brain to remember that little Unix that I used to know, quite a long time ago?

And my idea is that using a desktop that have more of a look and feel of that I used back then, than of other environments that I've been using before and after, then my brain would be given the best possible circumstances.


Additionally, and here I may be totally wrong, it seemed to me that Cinnamon is more actively developed. If that is due to Xfce being close to perfect, whereas Cinnamon has been in dire need of bug fixes, is beyond my judging capacity.




This is most likely a very good advice!
I have three letters for you; BSD
 
Old 11-10-2013, 03:44 AM   #23
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
On the other hand:
My thinking is that if my needs are humble, why should I have lots of packages installed that I don't use?
You shouldnt. It wont make a huge amount of difference if you do though.

That doesnt really make a huge amount of difference to the risk of breakage, or the need to get far more updates than you would if you used a point release distro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
Wouldn't the required updates be less demanding if I use the laptop almost as a Chromebook?
What do you mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
I'm a human. Humans choose with gut feelings and other emotions.

I had to make a choice. That choice had to be made with a rather sketchy understanding of the alternatives. I considered Cinnamon, MATE, KDE and Xfce. Although my usual instincts would tell me to prefer anything that's considered lightweight, in this case I came to decide for (starting out with) Cinnamon. And the chief reason was that the look on screenshots made me feel somewhat at home - reminding me, I belive, of my earlier Unix experiences.

Actually, I'm rather serious here.
I ask: How should I make my brain to remember that little Unix that I used to know, quite a long time ago?

And my idea is that using a desktop that have more of a look and feel of that I used back then, than of other environments that I've been using before and after, then my brain would be given the best possible circumstances.
I dont see it. I've seen screenshots of 1997 gnome, and cinnamon seems less like it than Xfce. Not that either looks that much like gnome from the 1990s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
Additionally, and here I may be totally wrong, it seemed to me that Cinnamon is more actively developed. If that is due to Xfce being close to perfect, whereas Cinnamon has been in dire need of bug fixes, is beyond my judging capacity.
Cinnamon is a fork of gnome 3 (gnome shell) which was only released in 2011.

Xfce 4.X was relased way back in 2005, so its had a long time to get things sorted out. Its also a less demanding DE.

So its not suprising that Xfce has less updates than cinnamon.

I'd guess that its your style to research a lot, make a decision then stick to it. You dont need to to with linux..why paint yourself into a decision about what DE you want when you havent experienced them?

IMO you do better to do an install something, and try out a few different DEs. Its easy to change DE from the login screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Germany_chris View Post
Dude it's over 4 GB trimmed you can shave it to ~3.6 it's fat.
Why worry about a couple of 100MB in these days of 1TB+ HDDs?
 
Old 11-10-2013, 03:55 AM   #24
Germany_chris
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,027

Rep: Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
You shouldnt. It wont make a huge amount of difference if you do though.

That doesnt really make a huge amount of difference to the risk of breakage, or the need to get far more updates than you would if you used a point release distro.



What do you mean?



I dont see it. I've seen screenshots of 1997 gnome, and cinnamon seems less like it than Xfce. Not that either looks that much like gnome from the 1990s.



Cinnamon is a fork of gnome 3 (gnome shell) which was only released in 2011.

Xfce 4.X was relased way back in 2005, so its had a long time to get things sorted out. Its also a less demanding DE.

So its not suprising that Xfce has less updates than cinnamon.

I'd guess that its your style to research a lot, make a decision then stick to it. You dont need to to with linux..why paint yourself into a decision about what DE you want when you havent experienced them?

IMO you do better to do an install something, and try out a few different DEs. Its easy to change DE from the login screen.



Why worry about a couple of 100MB in these days of 1TB+ HDDs?
Because it's a sign of someone making decisions for me if your distro will not sit on a CD I'm not going to use it. I want to give as little resources as possible to the OS.
 
Old 11-10-2013, 04:00 AM   #25
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Just because the install CD/DVD is bigger doesnt mean the eventual install is going to be bigger....and even if the install is bigger, that doesnt automatically mean it will use more resources.
 
Old 11-10-2013, 04:12 AM   #26
Germany_chris
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,027

Rep: Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Just because the install CD/DVD is bigger doesnt mean the eventual install is going to be bigger....and even if the install is bigger, that doesnt automatically mean it will use more resources.
If you have more things you have more process' running in the background.

If your distro is huge it means I need to trim it I don't want to do that when installing I just want to put a basic system together I'll add packages and tools thanks.

Slack takes an entire DVD and relies on me to not install stuff to keep it slim. I disagree with that philosophy I'd rather start small and build. What I do however like about slack is the drop dead simple tools it provides for slimming.
 
Old 11-10-2013, 11:03 AM   #27
Manganus
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: San Fernando de Maspalomas
Distribution: Mint
Posts: 38

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
I'd guess that its your style to research a lot, make a decision then stick to it. You dont need to to with linux..why paint yourself into a decision about what DE you want when you havent experienced them?

IMO you do better to do an install something, and try out a few different DEs. Its easy to change DE from the login screen.
You are not totally wrong.
But this time, the question was: What should I start with?
And after having installed 64-bits Mint on the new laptop, and 32-bits Mint on an old broken laptop, that I run with a 10 years old (external) display from Eizo and a set of Logitech unifying trackball and keyboard, I'm quite happy with that choice.

Seemingly it was The Right Choice (or, at least, one of the right choices) to start with something else than Arch. And this right choice was made thanks to advices from you, Cascade9, and others.

I'm positively impressed by how easy it has been.
And that ease must be thanks to the bloatedness?

Actually, it's been totally uncomplicated!
- so far, at least.

WiFi worked without any other intervention from me than typing the password. The network disk units were immediately visible, readable and writeable.

Return from suspended state and hibernation doesn't work.
But that's something I think I can endure for some time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Why worry about a couple of 100MB in these days of 1TB+ HDDs?
Well, maybe one doesn't worry primarily about the 100 MB.
But that too. I disagree with the general idea that since CPU, RAM and terabyte drives are cheap, the solution on every shortcoming is to find a new computer with more and extra of everything. It's true that they are cheap, but...


I worry about how long my laptop's battery lasts.
I worry about how hot my laptop is.
I worry about how heavy it is.

I care about how long it lasts from turning on my laptop until it's ready to use.
I care about how often it seems to respond with latency, while I use it.
I care about how often it requires some kind of healing.

It seems to me that Chris from Germany and I have somewhat similar feelings:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Germany_chris View Post
If you have more things you have more process' running in the background.

If your distro is huge it means I need to trim it I don't want to do that when installing I just want to put a basic system together I'll add packages and tools thanks.
 
Old 11-10-2013, 11:25 PM   #28
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Germany_chris View Post
If you have more things you have more process' running in the background.
Sometimes, yes. Always, no.

Just having more packages installed does not mean they are running....and even if they are more packages running doesnt mean more reousrces used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Germany_chris View Post
If your distro is huge it means I need to trim it I don't want to do that when installing I just want to put a basic system together I'll add packages and tools thanks.

Slack takes an entire DVD and relies on me to not install stuff to keep it slim.
Having a DVD installer doesnt mean its 'huge'. You dont have to install everything on the install disc.

If you like arfch/cinnamon, fine. Calling slackware 'fat' because it comes on a DVD, or becuase you can shave a few 100MB more from the install size with arch doesnt make much sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
Well, maybe one doesn't worry primarily about the 100 MB.
But that too. I disagree with the general idea that since CPU, RAM and terabyte drives are cheap, the solution on every shortcoming is to find a new computer with more and extra of everything. It's true that they are cheap, but...
LOL, thats going down the rabbit hole....

3.7GB vs 4GB installed size doesnt make much difference. Even 3.7GB vs 6.6GB (my Xfce debian sid install from years ago with quite a bit of extra software installed) is nothing major. Its not a question of finding some huge HDD to take the massive install size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manganus View Post
I worry about how long my laptop's battery lasts.
I worry about how hot my laptop is.
I worry about how heavy it is.

I care about how long it lasts from turning on my laptop until it's ready to use.
I care about how often it seems to respond with latency, while I use it.
I care about how often it requires some kind of healing.
Aside from weight, all the things you are worring about are controlled by the kernel or packages, and some of those packages are optional. Stripping a distro to as small as possible can actually hurt battery life and increase heat output.

I know, I've said it too much already- just having more packages installed will not cause any major change to battery life or heat output.

It can have a very minor effect on bootup speed with a HDD. With a SSD, no real difference.

You can test this yourself by installing a different desktop. It will install a lot more packages, but it should not affect boot speed (provided that the distro or the user hasnt configured any of the new packages to run at startup).

Last edited by cascade9; 11-10-2013 at 11:26 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old 11-11-2013, 01:38 AM   #29
Germany_chris
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,027

Rep: Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Sometimes, yes. Always, no.

Just having more packages installed does not mean they are running....and even if they are more packages running doesnt mean more reousrces used.



Having a DVD installer doesnt mean its 'huge'. You dont have to install everything on the install disc.

If you like arfch/cinnamon, fine. Calling slackware 'fat' because it comes on a DVD, or becuase you can shave a few 100MB more from the install size with arch doesnt make much sense to me.



LOL, thats going down the rabbit hole....

3.7GB vs 4GB installed size doesnt make much difference. Even 3.7GB vs 6.6GB (my Xfce debian sid install from years ago with quite a bit of extra software installed) is nothing major. Its not a question of finding some huge HDD to take the massive install size.



Aside from weight, all the things you are worring about are controlled by the kernel or packages, and some of those packages are optional. Stripping a distro to as small as possible can actually hurt battery life and increase heat output.

I know, I've said it too much already- just having more packages installed will not cause any major change to battery life or heat output.

It can have a very minor effect on bootup speed with a HDD. With a SSD, no real difference.

You can test this yourself by installing a different desktop. It will install a lot more packages, but it should not affect boot speed (provided that the distro or the user hasnt configured any of the new packages to run at startup).
More packages installed means more crap running no matter how you slice it. I can stop stuff out but I shouldn't have to, how about the distro let me make my own decisions about what I want installed not what I don't want installed? Yes I will call just about all the main line distros fat. What's the average package count ya think?
 
Old 11-11-2013, 01:44 AM   #30
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Germany_chris View Post
More packages installed means more crap running no matter how you slice it.
Bollocks, I have a few installs (last count was 20) of varying size and package count. Unless I install a package that runs a service there are no more things running on the larger installs at start time and idling along than the smaller ones at start time and idling along.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SSD and 8GB RAM, What size SWAP? wulp Linux - General 9 08-25-2011 10:38 AM
Acer One AOA110 8GB SSD Ubuntu 10.10 Remix Atheros Wireless Spikenaylor Linux - Laptop and Netbook 1 01-29-2011 10:00 AM
Would 8GB SSD/512MB be enough for Ubuntu Netbook Remix? markw10 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 1 12-05-2008 12:08 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration