LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Ubuntu
User Name
Password
Ubuntu This forum is for the discussion of Ubuntu Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 04-27-2011, 06:51 AM   #1
Ulysses_
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 647

Rep: Reputation: 42
The snappiest of ubuntu derivatives


What is the snappiest (meaning subjectively faster in the user interface, but perhaps a little slower in other areas) of the ubuntu derivatives?
 
Old 04-27-2011, 06:55 AM   #2
arochester
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Distribution: Debian Squeeze Xfce
Posts: 569

Rep: Reputation: 79
Wattos? http://www.planetwatt.com/
 
Old 04-27-2011, 07:11 AM   #3
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,617
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073
Bodhi Linux
Lubuntu
 
Old 04-28-2011, 09:16 AM   #4
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulysses_ View Post
What is the snappiest (meaning subjectively faster in the user interface, but perhaps a little slower in other areas) of the ubuntu derivatives?
The fastest IMO would be a minimal install with fluxbox/E16/E17 (or other WM), LXDE or even XFCE installed afterward. BTW, Xfce4 should be slightly faster than xubuntu-desktop.

It varies from release to release, but not that long ago a minimal install + gnome was lighter, and faster, than xubuntu.
 
Old 04-28-2011, 09:26 AM   #5
snowpine
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,921

Rep: Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050Reputation: 1050
Roll your own. There's a good tutorial here:

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal
 
Old 04-28-2011, 05:22 PM   #6
Ulysses_
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 647

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
This one seems promising. But after a while I realised firefox and opera are not available in synaptic? You're supposed to download script bundles ending with .bod to install these.

Have you tried this distro? Why the .bod's?
 
Old 04-28-2011, 05:31 PM   #7
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,617
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073
I personally haven't used it so far, bit got some good reviews.

About the .bod files, I found this at the Bodhi Wiki:
Quote:
Whether you are new to Linux or not you may have wondered what exactly are the bod files available for download on Bodhi's Add Software page. If you are familiar with Linux you are probably aware that some Linux Distributions have rpm files, others have deb, but bod files seem unique to Bodhi Linux. It is apparent how to use a bod file, they are provided primarily for offline usage and allow one to install software including all of the dependencies the software requires without having to download a lot of deb files.
 
Old 04-28-2011, 06:49 PM   #8
Ulysses_
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 647

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
allow one to install software including all of the dependencies the software requires without having to download a lot of deb files
The sum of firefox and its dependencies a smaller download than the .debs? Strange. Wondering if they are in fact hiding something in their bundle of firefox and that is why they are not allowing an ordinary download from the standard ubuntu repos with synaptic.
 
Old 04-28-2011, 06:56 PM   #9
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,617
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073
You got that wrong. It is not intended to be smaller, it is intended to be just one package, instead of all the debs you would need to install Firefox. It is just easier to install without network connection.
And I doubt that they put anything in there that shouldn't be seen by a normal user. I would call that a little bit paranoid. I wonder why you are not wondering about the same in the Ubuntu-package? While Bodhi Linux is a community distro Ubuntu is made by a company that would have much more interest in spying at you.

But anyways, feel free to download Firefox directly from Mozilla, if you are concerned about that.
 
Old 04-28-2011, 11:08 PM   #10
widget
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Location: S.E. Montana
Distribution: Debian Testing, Stable, Sid and Manjaro, Mageia 3, LMDE
Posts: 2,296

Rep: Reputation: 388Reputation: 388Reputation: 388Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
You got that wrong. It is not intended to be smaller, it is intended to be just one package, instead of all the debs you would need to install Firefox. It is just easier to install without network connection.
And I doubt that they put anything in there that shouldn't be seen by a normal user. I would call that a little bit paranoid. I wonder why you are not wondering about the same in the Ubuntu-package? While Bodhi Linux is a community distro Ubuntu is made by a company that would have much more interest in spying at you.

But anyways, feel free to download Firefox directly from Mozilla, if you are concerned about that.
We can't do that. Mozilla is all the time trying to deep mine for our information.

OK, so I am a smart a$$.

Setting up the package that way would be simpler for a respin outfit to do than to create a single deb that would install all that stuff in the right order.
 
Old 04-29-2011, 02:14 PM   #11
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulysses_ View Post
This one seems promising. But after a while I realised firefox and opera are not available in synaptic? You're supposed to download script bundles ending with .bod to install these.

Have you tried this distro? Why the .bod's?
Really? TobiSGDs post make me think that the .bod files are just there for offline use.

As far as firefox goes, I would have thought that you would be able to use synaptic/software cener to d/l and install. The bodhi wiki says this as well-

Quote:
Beyond this you can easily find and install an application for any task you may have in mind via Bodhi Software Center.
http://www.bodhilinux.com/wiki/doku.php?id=philosophy

Opera, that could be different. I've never tried installing opera on a ubuntu box, if its anything like debian you need to add a repo to get it from synaptic/apt-get etc..

I still havent tried bodhi, and if I did it would only be because its a easy way to get E17. I've run E17 on debian a few times, it wasnt good enough to make me stick with it but maybe its time to have another look at the wolrd longest running development time WM. LOL

I really wish that they would release a non 'preview' E17.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
And I doubt that they put anything in there that shouldn't be seen by a normal user. I would call that a little bit paranoid. I wonder why you are not wondering about the same in the Ubuntu-package? While Bodhi Linux is a community distro Ubuntu is made by a company that would have much more interest in spying at you.
+1. I've got no problems with paranoia, but if you are worrying about the whole .bod thing, or ubuntu, then a different distro might be a better idea.
 
Old 04-29-2011, 02:22 PM   #12
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,617
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Really? TobiSGDs post make me think that the .bod files are just there for offline use.
It is their main purpose, but I think they will also work if you try installing online.
This made me curious about Bodhi, I will download and install it to a VM. I will report back later if you can install Firefox without using the .bod-file.
 
Old 04-29-2011, 03:00 PM   #13
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,617
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073Reputation: 4073
OK, I installed it, and at first I couldn't install Firefox with Synaptic. I then have enabled the proposed-updates and backports repositories from Ubuntu, and after that I could install Firefox with Synaptic. So that is not really a problem.

Sidenote: Boot and install time are very fast, even in a VM.
 
Old 04-29-2011, 03:07 PM   #14
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 287

Rep: Reputation: 169Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
{...}if you can install Firefox without using the .bod-file.
IMHO it's much easier to just go to Mozilla website, download firefox, unarchive to somewhere and run it(can make shortcut too). But yea i understand you wanted try something else so this is just small suggestion for other people who want firefox in easy way.
 
Old 04-29-2011, 03:09 PM   #15
szboardstretcher
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Detroit, MI
Distribution: GNU/Linux systemd
Posts: 3,383
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1100Reputation: 1100Reputation: 1100Reputation: 1100Reputation: 1100Reputation: 1100Reputation: 1100Reputation: 1100Reputation: 1100
In my experience, regular Ubuntu is very fast and snappy. Maybe its just this computer though.

Very subjective question, really.
 
  


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
Inconsistent disk naming on Ubuntu and derivatives dsswift Ubuntu 3 03-21-2011 02:06 PM
LXer: Seven Ubuntu Derivatives worth Checking Out LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-24-2010 09:00 PM
Difference between Debian and RHEL derivatives dhruv17singhal Linux - General 2 06-25-2010 12:12 PM
LXer: Ubuntu derivatives flourish LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-13-2010 04:40 PM
Ubuntu vs. derivatives (Fluxbuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) jhsu Ubuntu 5 09-12-2009 09:22 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.

Main Menu
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
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration