Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
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 hate to do this, but I feel it's necessary after the amount of reading I've put in while bearing no fruit.
I need some advice on choosing a distro to use, and here are the basic things I want:
1. I'm a minimalist essentially, so I'm looking for something that is clean, efficient, and fast (as opposed to cluttered and flashy - Vista is a good example of this *shudder*).
2. While I am a minimalist in general, I'll be using this computer as my main workstation, and I need it to have basic functionality. This, to me, means that I'd like to have my choice at a relatively large collection of software using the distribution's default package management system.
3. Much like introuble, I'd prefer to not have an obscure distribution. I'd like to use a distribution that has a fairly thriving community.
4. I wouldn't mind having something bleeding-edge, but I'd prefer something that was tried-and-true.
5. I'd prefer not to use GNOME.
6. And last (but definitely not least) being a beginner, I need a distribution that I can actually learn from without having to be a GNU/Linux beast. It doesn't have to be so simple a baby can use it, but I don't want anything so complicated that I'm constantly having to visit IRC channels to get answers and such. I'm sure you understand what I mean by that.
So to sum it all up: speed, reliability, community
Any input, from beginner to pro, is appreciated.
Thanks!
Hmmm... So I've been told. Slackware seems pretty daunting, and I know a lot of the setup process is in CLI. I've always wanted to use Slackware though, I always thought it had a great philosophy and such. I just always thought I didn't know enough to use it to its potential.
What the deal with the church of the subgenious, by the way?
Hmmm... So I've been told. Slackware seems pretty daunting, and I know a lot of the setup process is in CLI. I've always wanted to use Slackware though, I always thought it had a great philosophy and such. I just always thought I didn't know enough to use it to its potential.
I always felt that I could not tackle Slackware, but you cannot learn until you try. Kinda like learning to crawl before you can walk.
Here's a post I made in another thread in regards to using Slackware:
1. I'm a minimalist essentially, so I'm looking for something that is clean, efficient, and fast (as opposed to cluttered and flashy - Vista is a good example of this *shudder*).
Good to know that Vista is good at something...That's something that I hadn't noticed.
More seriously, this item seems to be a request for a plain and simple GUI, rather than the distro, per se. XFCE would be a good candidate, as would various other things from fluxbox onwards. Maybe then you could consider a distro than gives you a choice of GUIs?
Quote:
2. While I am a minimalist in general, I'll be using this computer as my main workstation, and I need it to have basic functionality. This, to me, means that I'd like to have my choice at a relatively large collection of software using the distribution's default package management system.
Any of the 'biggies' ought to satisfy this, provided that you have the bandwidth to pull stuff off the 'net. If you don't, and therefore are relying on what comes on the DVD, it does get a little harder, but the biggies should still do it.
Quote:
3. Much like introuble, I'd prefer to not have an obscure distribution. I'd like to use a distribution that has a fairly thriving community.
Still haven't gone far from SuSE, Fedora and Debian... And while the *buntus have a thriving community, I'm really not completely happy with kubuntu and Ubuntu is gnome-based. Xubuntu would be a possibilty, but I can't honestly say that I know it is any better put together than kubuntu.
Quote:
4. I wouldn't mind having something bleeding-edge, but I'd prefer something that was tried-and-true.
Don't wait for SuSE 11, that'll be too 'bleeding edge'. Debian stable is an obvious possibility. And avoid anything KDE 4.x for a while (at least 'till 4.1 and preferably a few minor releases from there, as 4 is still 'settling').
Quote:
5. I'd prefer not to use GNOME.
So would I, but then I'm happy with KDE and I suspect that its too 'maximalist' for you. Although, if you only mean 'in appearance' as opposed to 'in feature set' you could probably configure it to suit. Or maybe that's the problem; you don't want to spend the rest of your life configuring things.
Quote:
6. And last (but definitely not least) being a beginner, I need a distribution that I can actually learn from without having to be a GNU/Linux beast. It doesn't have to be so simple a baby can use it, but I don't want anything so complicated that I'm constantly having to visit IRC channels to get answers and such. I'm sure you understand what I mean by that.
Slackware is the kind of distro which isn't obviously simple the first time you install it and boot.
It looks boring and you do a lot of stuff by hand at install. It is after 1 week of use that you really appreciate it. You'll realize that everything work just as expected and nothing is hidden. It's stable and fast and no tweaking is necessary. The only difficult part is installing, really. After that, it's easier than ubuntu.
You know the more and more I read about Slackware, I think I'm going to love and hate it if I choose it. For one, I'm not a technical master. I have heard the saying though that, "Once you learn Fedora, you've learned Fedora; but once you've learned Slackware, you've learned Linux." That is what I really want to do, learn Linux inside and out. So maybe that makes it the right distribution for me.
I do have a few more questions about it though that I figured you could answer on here.
1. I've read that it has a very complicated security updating system, and that it is hard to upgrade in general for beginners. This could cause problems for me.
2. It doesn't look like it has a large choice of software. Does slackbuild take care of this problem? Or is Slackware pretty much limited app wise?
3. Much like introuble, I'd prefer to not have an obscure distribution. I'd like to use a distribution that has a fairly thriving community.
You didn't hear it from me, but that introuble guy doesn't know what he's talking about IMNHO; so don't listen to him. [not to mention he is also arrogant and he kicked my cat once.]
Good to know that Vista is good at something...That's something that I hadn't noticed.
More seriously, this item seems to be a request for a plain and simple GUI, rather than the distro, per se. XFCE would be a good candidate, as would various other things from fluxbox onwards. Maybe then you could consider a distro than gives you a choice of GUIs?
Any of the 'biggies' ought to satisfy this, provided that you have the bandwidth to pull stuff off the 'net. If you don't, and therefore are relying on what comes on the DVD, it does get a little harder, but the biggies should still do it.
Still haven't gone far from SuSE, Fedora and Debian... And while the *buntus have a thriving community, I'm really not completely happy with kubuntu and Ubuntu is gnome-based. Xubuntu would be a possibilty, but I can't honestly say that I know it is any better put together than kubuntu.
Don't wait for SuSE 11, that'll be too 'bleeding edge'. Debian stable is an obvious possibility. And avoid anything KDE 4.x for a while (at least 'till 4.1 and preferably a few minor releases from there, as 4 is still 'settling').
So would I, but then I'm happy with KDE and I suspect that its too 'maximalist' for you. Although, if you only mean 'in appearance' as opposed to 'in feature set' you could probably configure it to suit. Or maybe that's the problem; you don't want to spend the rest of your life configuring things.
Now I'm afraid that doesn't sound like Slackware.
I'll be using xfce on whatever I choose actually. Otherwise, I'd use KDE. Xubuntu is actually what I was mainly considering right now. Judging by what I've read about Xubuntu, it seems to be a lot more stable and generally cool.
What I meant by all that is that I want something that looks clean and runs quickly. I think I'm mainly talking about feature sets, and I don't mind configuring things (granted that it take a relatively short amount of time). The more and more desktop environments look like windows, the more and more I want to run away screaming. Know what I mean?
Thanks for the help by the way, and I think Slackware allows you to pick a GUI from 6 or so choices during install (?)
Slackware is the kind of distro which isn't obviously simple the first time you install it and boot.
It looks boring and you do a lot of stuff by hand at install. It is after 1 week of use that you really appreciate it. You'll realize that everything work just as expected and nothing is hidden. It's stable and fast and no tweaking is necessary. The only difficult part is installing, really. After that, it's easier than ubuntu.
Meh... I don't mind boring as long as it yields awesome!
But yeah, I understand that it may take awhile to get used to. I'm not getting scared away. Having nothing hidden makes it sound even more appealing.
Thanks for your input Agrouf. I noticed that you are a fairly active member in the Slackware forums, I'm sure I'll see you around there more.
Have a look at PCLinuxOS2007.
It has an active forum, uses KDE as the default desktop and is easy to use.
Its rpm based (distro based on work from Mandriva) and uses the synaptic package
manager. Its largely the work of one man (or so I believe) so you rarely get failed
dependencies as theres only one package maintainer.
Most importantly, it does not use libATA and so will install equally well on Intel
or AMD motherboards (unlike the latest Ubuntu).
Couple of screenshots at the site: http://www.pclinuxos.com/
All you need to install Slackware is an average IQ, the ability to read and follow instructions, and the willingness to think for yourself. It's really not as difficult as some who have never tried it believe it to be.
It doesn't have as large a range of available packages as some other distros, but there are ways around that.
Security updates are easy with slackpkg.
Try it and see for yourself.
Try arch linux. It is fast and not bloated with software that you probably will not use. When you install arch, it will install a base system. You can then install the rest of the stuff online using pacman. Pacman is a package manager and it handles dependencies and it checks for conflicts of software and libraries.
The second choice is slackware. Installing packages in slackware is getting easier using slackbuilds scripts and slackware binaries. Also, you can compile software as slackware includes lots of preinstall compilers,libraries, devel files and the like.
All you need to install Slackware is an average IQ, the ability to read and follow instructions, and the willingness to think for yourself. It's really not as difficult as some who have never tried it believe it to be.
It doesn't have as large a range of available packages as some other distros, but there are ways around that.
Security updates are easy with slackpkg.
Try it and see for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv502
Try arch linux. It is fast and not bloated with software that you probably will not use. When you install arch, it will install a base system. You can then install the rest of the stuff online using pacman. Pacman is a package manager and it handles dependencies and it checks for conflicts of software and libraries.
The second choice is slackware. Installing packages in slackware is getting easier using slackbuilds scripts and slackware binaries. Also, you can compile software as slackware includes lots of preinstall compilers,libraries, devel files and the like.
These are my two personal favorite linux distros.
Well, thank you all for your input (including you, hal8000b - even though I'm slacking instead).
It seems that the overwhelming consensus is that I use Slackware. brianL's post really drove it home, because I know I have a decent I.Q., the willingness to learn, and the ability to follow instructions (I hope we all have these skills! They come in handy )
Anyway, thanks again, and to those who lurk around the Slackware board, I'll see you there I'm sure.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
)
