Hi. I am new here and I would like some input. If this has already been answered I apologize, but the search does not like two-letter words like 'qt'.

I have worked in help desk for Windows machines for 10 years now, but I have very limited knowledge about Linux systems. I am considering switching to a free OS at home so I researched a bit, but some things are still unclear.

Like most new users I started by searching for an ideal distribution (there are 100s of them, surely there is one perfect out-of-the-box solution ready for me =). Suddenly I was torn by questions that I had very little experience to make an informed decision about: KDE, GTK, yum, Wayland... so, if I say something stupid, please correct me.

Since I do not need too many bells and whistles, and I think that system resources should be used by programs and not by the OS itself, I thought Lubuntu would be an OK choice at first, but I noticed they pack a lot of programs that I would never use or that would not be my first choice. Someone pointed me then to Ubuntu minimal. Reading more about packages, though, I became a little concerned about programs and their dependencies.

Question 1 - Installation and uninstall of programs in Windows eventually leads to performance degradation. Is that a problem in Linux?
Question 2 - I have read some answers stating that packages from official repositories are immune to this. Is it true?

Since the official repository versions are supposed to be so hassle-free, I checked them and found that for some programs they were behind for quite a few versions. I understand that testing and validating take time, but when I checked none of them had the 'newer' 6 months old version of Tellico (some of them do now).

Question 3 - Is this common behavior or the software I searched for is too obscure?
Question 4 - I understand that stability and new features are often incompatible goals, but how risky is to use a less conservative official repository?

Finally, after some more reading, someone warned about mixing KDE/qt and Gnome/GTK programs. I understand that they have different dependencies and that they are loaded when you use the program, but

Question 5 - Once loaded are they always on memory or they unload once the program is finished? If so, what is the big downside of mixing KDE with Gnome programs? If there is a downside, did someone already benchmarked this and we know now if it is better to run KDE programs in a Gnome-based OS or vice-versa (or maybe if it is better run them on LXDE?)

Thanks for your time.

Hi: & Welcome to Linux Questions:-

I've been running linux for a long time and that has never occured on any of my linux systems.

Immune? Immune to what? Some of us are immune to the flu:- (not sure what you mean)

It's always best to download and obtain packages that you want for your distribution from the repository that was designed specifically for the distribution that you are running.
I personally don't trust 3rd party repos and I'm fussy about 3rd party software.
https://codeghar.wordpress.com/2008/...-repositories/

It depends on what software your looking for.

If your referring to an unofficial repository I don't trust them but other members may have other ideas and chime in to tell you their experience with that. What it really boils down to is if you trust know and trust the maintainers of that repo.

I'm not sure on that:-

My thinking is that it's wise to run KDE programs in the KDE environment and Gnome applications in the Gnome DE. It could generate conflict but I've never tried it.

1 members found this post helpful.

Size of your installation is the only downside. Installing gnome programs in KDE will pull in a ton of GTK & Gnome libraries, and vice versa for installation of KDE in Gnome (KDE & QT libraries). Sometimes QT apps don't look quite right in Gnome and GTK apps don't look quite right in QT, but that's less of an issue than it used to be. There are some distros that do strict GTK or QT only apps, but most KDE based distro's will mix because Chrome/Chromium, Firefox, GIMP are all GTK based, and are arguably the absolute best for what they're designed to do

1 members found this post helpful.

Regarding out of date software in repos, it varies by package and by distro. Ubuntu often is further behind where something like Arch or Fedora is going to have the shiniest, newest things pretty reliably. These "bleeding edge" distros are also generally buggier and more accident prone. If you absolutely need a specific version of something and it isnt in your distro's repo, you can usually just build whatever it is from source code with relatively little fuss.

As I understand it Getting the "wrong" software for your desktop environment doesnt necesarilly do anything bad. The software will require many libraries for its native environment though, which some people find distastefull. It doesnt end up being a hastle for your average user since the package manager should take care of the dependencies.

Linux based OSes are pretty modular, I wouldnt worry too much about commiting to one environment. Things might not look pretty if you mix GTK and KDE super often though.

1 members found this post helpful.

I use Void Linux, it is totally stripped down to Just the OS with very little applications. Just enough to get you started. No "bloat". I find that most "net" installs like Debian's Net Install is the same, not much in the extra's dept. no xorg even. Just enough to get you started then you can build off of that. Just installing what you need on a need by need basis. Slackware is too a good one for that. Install everything. then add what you need later. It is a very good learning tool and a solid System for everyday use. Whence you get it installed, and everything on it that you need. You're good to go.

if any program leaves files behind, like windows, just delete them. it does not harm the OS. Windows ini files are what screws up the system. Programs write to them, but when you unInstall it they leave behind entries that confuse that system eventually.

if by what you mean as immune to the Windows effect. Yes, because it is not Windows.
that is true.

it depends on the person that maintains the repo to keep with his or hers vision on what it is they want to give to the public to use, coupled with how lazy or over worked they maybe in trying to keep up with it.

That all depends on your source. Where you're getting the "latest and greatest" from to install on your system.

along with what everyone has said about that so far. Sometimes one will try to over take the other as well depending on what you're trying to run. I had CrunchBang (Debian base with OpenBox window Manager) installed on my LapTop once. then had to install a program that used Gnome so it installed "everything" Gnome to run it. then it'd start looking like Ubuntu at times when ever I tried to use a certain app. Gnome was bleeding (over) into the system way too much. I just had to tell the System to stop doing that. So it did.
You're Welcome...

1 members found this post helpful.

CaptainNewbie,

Welcome to LQ.

What make/model of laptop/desktop are you using?

Details of memory size, CPU, video card, HDD size, wifi card etc would be useful.

Your main questions have already been answered.

I fully appreciate that with your background of 10 years on a Windows helpdesk, you are going to need to adopt a completely different outlook.

Do try not to get bogged down in the minutiae.

There is a good chance that something like Linux Mint 17.3 MATE will run perfectly on your hardware.

Distrowatch:
http://distrowatch.com/

Top ten distros:
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

Personally I would recommend one of the major distros that uses Debian's APT package handling utility such as Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Debian, MX-15 etc:
https://wiki.debian.org/apt-get

1 members found this post helpful.

Config files will not slow the system down after their parent has been uninstalled. Everything else will just ignore them. In fact, some distributions contain an option in their package system to remove configuration for a package as well.

Debian is extremely stable, and gets that way by having very long testing times. Ubuntu, based off it, has packages from Debian Testing, packages that are still being tested, and which may offer the worst of both worlds: instability and a slightly older version. But Debian Unstable can often be a lot more unstable because those are the newest packages. For stability while getting the latest versions, I find Arch (or its friendlier cousin Antergos, which has an installer) (or Manjaro, which doesn't offer as new packages on some things, and which just had trouble on my hardware) quite nice. Occassionally, a package might break and be unusable for 1-5 days, but there's no in-between: packages work with either perfect stability or they don't work at all without downgrading and waiting for the next upgrade.

As for KDE and GTK, the two biggest problems are the look, the double sets of libraries, and the speed. The look I barely notice, the double libraries aren't too huge unless you install a KDE app, which have complicated dependencies, and the speed may take up to 2 seconds longer to start a non-native app.

2 members found this post helpful.

Me too. To be honest, I can't tell which applications are qt or gtk on my KDE system, probably because I don't really care. Since quite a lot of software depends on gtk, a lot of the gtk libraries are already present after my having installed some essential software, so I have no qualms about installing more gtk-based software. On the other hand, if I am thinking of installing an application and I notice that it has a list of dependencies as long as my arm, then I will probably think about installing an alternative.

However, if I were running a Gnome-based environment, I think I might be a little bit loathe to install a KDE application, given the dependencies that may be forthcoming to satisfy the KDE ecosystem. Alternatives to almost all KDE software are available elsewhere. I have to say though that Kate, Dolphin and Konsole, to name but three, are superb KDE applications and one of the reasons that I use the desktop environment.

1 members found this post helpful.

Wow, very fast, friendly, and useful answers. Thank you all.

From what I understood:

1 - Linux does not usually have problems after multiple cycles of install/uninstall software
I guess installing a software, performing a task and then uninstall it should not prove problematic even in the long term. Is building from source also safe for a clean uninstall?

2 - Mixing qt and GTK is not particularly bad especially GTK on a KDE system, but most people are not too keen about it
Because usually there are good similar software for both systems? Because the risk of a software conflict?

3 - The worst consequence from using a less stable repo is to break the specific updated programs and having to revert them back

@beachboy2 - My machine is an i5 with 4GB RAM, so from what I have gathered I do not think it would be a problem for most distributions

Building from source is not usually safe. Even "make uninstall" may not get it all, and not all make systems provide that. That's why you should use your distribution's packaging system. Certain packaging systems that build from source can also remove again.

Qt and GTK+ don't really conflict; most people just don't like the (rather large) amount of space two major libraries and their dependencies take.

Also, I personally don't recommend installing software from other repos as they don't necessarily meet the same quality, they may not work with a certain version, and they could contain malware (depending on the source). Debian in fact strongly recommends that you not use other repos (who would on Debian with over 60000 packages anyway?) whereas Ubuntu encourages PPAs, and Arch has its AUR for extras.

1 members found this post helpful.

This is all true, but it is an option that exists, and if you actually NEED the latest version of something you are not likely to uninstall it later (assuming the build works). Some software doesnt make it to repos often (e.g. veracrypt). I would contest the use of the word [un]safe but yes it is certainly less sanitary.

1 members found this post helpful.

I am satisfied with the answers provided. Thank you all for your time.

You're Welcome:-