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 06-30-2012, 05:39 AM   #1
CrazyGuy158
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2012
Posts: 105

Rep: Reputation: 1
Time for Linux again.


Hey guys. A while back I decided to give Linux a rest, but now I have the urge of running a dual-boot yet again. I have set aside 100GB of space for Linux but I have no idea what distro to run, really.

I have run Fedora 16 in the past and Fedora 17 also looks nice. I despise Ubuntu's unity UI and it's bloat. I might consider running Ubuntu, though, and installing Gnome and removing some/most of the bloat.

I despise bloat, but I would like most things pre-configured and preferably many drivers preinstalled, so is Ubuntu for me?
 
Old 06-30-2012, 05:53 AM   #2
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,811
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191
You don't have to use Fedora / Ubuntu with Gnome 3 / Unity. Try Xfce spin-offs. It's simple and far from bloated
 
Old 06-30-2012, 06:01 AM   #3
CrazyGuy158
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2012
Posts: 105

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
You don't have to use Fedora / Ubuntu with Gnome 3 / Unity. Try Xfce spin-offs. It's simple and far from bloated
LXDE and Xfce sure are lightweight, but they're kind of ugly. My laptop can more than well run either Gnome 3 or KDE so I'm looking to either install some Gnome 3 distro or KDE. Which has the advantage today? I rememeber KDE being awesome back in the day.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 06:10 AM   #4
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,811
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191
You can always customise the looks. They don't have to look ugly.

KDE is more configurable but I'd just try both and decide which one you feel more comfortable with (bear in mind that these days both Gnome and KDE = bloat)

There are also other (very customisable) environments: fluxbox, openbox, Awesome, i3wm (my favourite one). The last 2 are tiling window managers.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 06:26 AM   #5
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Hiding somewhere on planet Earth.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,644
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577
1) Any DE or WM can be tweaked or customised to look beautiful. XFCE's appearance options make it easy to give the windows and dialogue boxes a slight 3-dimensional look. Configuring Openbox requires a little knowledge, but it can be made to look more beautiful than the bloated DEs. Et cetera.

2) A KDE or Gnome distro is not needed. Any DE or WM can be installed on any system. Install a system you like and install whichever GUI you like best.

3) If visual attractiveness and eye candy is the primary criterion for choosing an operating system, one's priorities need to be re-examined. In my opinion, there are far more important factors to be considered.

4) There is usually a proportional inverse relationship between the visual beauty of a system and the system's quality.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-30-2012, 06:28 AM   #6
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738
XFCE is not ugly---it's functional...

When you start trying to make things pretty, they can quickly lose functionality. Regardless, you can set up most any distro with multiple GUIs---select which one using the login manager. try them all.....
 
Old 06-30-2012, 06:35 AM   #7
CrazyGuy158
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2012
Posts: 105

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
1) Any DE or WM can be tweaked or customised to look beautiful. XFCE's appearance options make it easy to give the windows and dialogue boxes a slight 3-dimensional look. Configuring Openbox requires a little knowledge, but it can be made to look more beautiful than the bloated DEs. Et cetera.

2) A KDE or Gnome distro is not needed. Any DE or WM can be installed on any system. Install a system you like and install whichever GUI you like best.

3) If visual attractiveness and eye candy is the primary criterion for choosing an operating system, one's priorities need to be re-examined. In my opinion, there are far more important factors to be considered.

4) There is usually a proportional inverse relationship between the visual beauty of a system and the system's quality.
I don't want a distro (or DE) with eye-candy overload. Slight eye-candy, perhaps, but a cleaner look is always better for me. Less is more.

I think I'd like a distro based off of debian, or at least using the debian package manager. I kind of like it more than .rpm.

Ok, let's say I completely drop the idea of KDE and Gnome for all it's worth and focus more on other DE's and WM's. I'd like a distro which initially comes with a less-demanding but still appealing DE (say LXDE or Xfce) and with at least some important drivers.

Based on the above, what distro can you recommend? Preferably a distro that doesn't need constant updates to remain stable/good. (That rules out Fedora, doesn't it, since it receives a ton of updates a lot?)

Last edited by CrazyGuy158; 06-30-2012 at 06:36 AM.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 06:48 AM   #8
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Hiding somewhere on planet Earth.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,644
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyGuy158 View Post
Based on the above, what distro can you recommend? Preferably a distro that doesn't need constant updates to remain stable/good. (That rules out Fedora, doesn't it, since it receives a ton of updates a lot?)
If stability is the primary concern, I would say Debian or it's derivatives: Saline, Solus, etc.; or Slackware and Salix. However, Debian and Slackware would both require some learning. Debian a little, Slackware a little more. If you do not want bugs and constant up-dates, stay away from Ubuntu and its derivatives. Others will disagree (mainly Buntu users), but that is my opinion.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 07:10 AM   #9
CrazyGuy158
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2012
Posts: 105

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Also, might I add that I don't care if the distro uses closed-source programs.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 07:30 AM   #10
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Hiding somewhere on planet Earth.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,644
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577
That rules out Debian. If you want closed source, you would need to install from source (lots of manual work). You might consider OpenSuse. I believe they are more open to proprietary software, since they are owned by a corporate entity. Of course there is Ubuntu. They even sell software to their users.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 07:42 AM   #11
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738
Water under the bridge maybe, but I would not choose a distro based on the featured Window Manager or DE----and not necessarily on the inclusion of every possible driver, etc. My criteria:
  • Simple, straightforward package management
  • Everything is available **somewhere**
  • Good documentation, forums, etc.
  • Not "dumbed down"---eg none of this Ubuntu "no root user" nonsense
  • Start small and build up
With the exception of the last item, these criteria would lead me to Debian, Slackware, and Arch (I'm ignoring all the distros that are based on one of these----I'm also skipping over all of the RPM-based distros--eg anything Redhat, SUSE, etc. All I remember about these was that I did not like them..).

Applying the last item---start small---gets me to Arch. When first installing Arch, you basically have NOTHING except a CLI cursor blinking at you---you add only what you want.

The one argument against Arch is the "rolling release" concept, in which you always have the latest of everything. Some say that this can make Arch less stable, but I have not really had any serious issues. To be sure, a full system update CAN cause some glitches and annoyances.....

I'd follow the typical advice for total newcomers--go to http://distrowatch.com and pick anything in the top 10 or so on their "hit list". If in doubt, install several different distros to see what works for you
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-30-2012, 07:43 AM   #12
CrazyGuy158
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2012
Posts: 105

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
That rules out Debian. If you want closed source, you would need to install from source (lots of manual work). You might consider OpenSuse. I believe they are more open to proprietary software, since they are owned by a corporate entity. Of course there is Ubuntu. They even sell software to their users.
Not only closed-source. I meant I accept packages which are closed-source, but of course I also want open-source packages.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 08:20 AM   #13
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Hiding somewhere on planet Earth.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,644
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577Reputation: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixellany View Post
Water under the bridge maybe, but I would not choose a distro based on the featured Window Manager or DE----and not necessarily on the inclusion of every possible driver, etc. My criteria:
  • Simple, straightforward package management
  • Everything is available **somewhere**
  • Good documentation, forums, etc.
  • Not "dumbed down"---eg none of this Ubuntu "no root user" nonsense
  • Start small and build up
+1
Good advice to live by.


Quote:
CrazyGuy158
Not only closed-source. I meant I accept packages which are closed-source, but of course I also want open-source packages.
My meaning is that installing what Debian calls non-free software is at times easy, but depending on where the package is from, at times can require knowledge and work.
1) Debian does not restrict what can be installed, but closed-source software is up to the user to install.
2) Debian has almost 30,000 packages. Most people can find everything they need among them and the APT package manager makes installation very easy.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 10:42 AM   #14
CrazyGuy158
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2012
Posts: 105

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
I tried out Arch for almost three hours and I feel like my head is going to explode. Now I remember why I don't want Arch to begin with.

Let's see how Debian is. Oh, I am also very disturbed about the "no root user" Ubuntu bullshit so I'm gonna rule out Ubuntu and all its derivatives.

EDIT: So far so good with Debian. I like the graphical installer, and that it automatically suggested to make partitions for /usr, /var, /tmp after the usual three (/home, /, /swap) and that it also set all partitions with reasonable sizes.

Last edited by CrazyGuy158; 06-30-2012 at 10:52 AM.
 
Old 06-30-2012, 10:54 AM   #15
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,811
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyGuy158 View Post
Oh, I am also very disturbed about the "no root user" Ubuntu bullshit so I'm gonna rule out Ubuntu and all its derivatives.
Isn't it just slightly out of proportion to dismiss a distro because of one little thing which, by the way, can be solved in 5 seconds?:

Code:
sudo passwd root
"no root user" bs solved.

Personally, I don't use/like Ubuntu, but the fact that the root account password is locked by default is probably last on my list.
 
  


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
how to understand user time, sys time, wait time, idle time of CPU guixingyi Linux - Server 1 08-24-2010 11:10 AM
first time poster/long time linux numptie ; converting outlook mails to linux pete793r Linux - Software 6 03-02-2010 08:41 AM
time on our RH linux FTP server is four hours ahead, but desktop time is correct?? dgr Linux - Newbie 10 10-09-2007 06:42 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 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