I have tried several LiveCD's (did not try FC5 or SuSe) and played around enough to decide that Gnome was for me. My PC is an AMD 1GHz with 512 MB RAM with a 30 GB disk. I have Ubuntu Drake installed and it runs well. Boots much faster than XP on the same box (separate HD).

My question is, if I am using Gnome, and assuming most of the recent distros are relatively the same under the hood (slight application differences) does it really matter which distro you use? Would FC5 or SuSe be all that different using Gnome? Just wondering if its really worth the effort to also install them to try.

TIA.

In my experience - trying Mandrake, Redhat/Fedora, SuSe and Ubuntu as alternatives to Windows on and off over a 3-year period before finally settling on Ubuntu - the differences are to do with how easy it is to tweak the installation so that everything (NIC, soundcard, webcam, printer, scanner, etc.) works as it should. I'm sure that if I persevered long enough with one of the other distros, I could have ironed out the problems. Also, I found the LiveCD experience to be different from the actual installation experience; has anyone else found this?

Of course, YMMV.

If you're happy with Ubuntu and you're comfortable with Gnome, then I'd say you've found what you're looking for. I would only recommend trying additional distros if you feel that there are features that you are missing that another distro might provide. As a desktop linux solution, I find Ubuntu to be terrific.

the major difference is the package manager and the package database. You can't install ubuntu packages on Fedora and vice versa. If you configure&&make&&make install, then it doesn't make a difference.

Your last sentence indicates that speed is the issue in your case. In most cases the distro you would use is immaterial as they are all based on the same kernel.
If you start to define what you are looking for, in this case speed, then the distro does matter. The consumer level distro's have "all things for all people concept" and can be very slow. If you found Ubuntu is what you like and your hardware is somewhat dated then for better performance look to do a base install of Debian and then just install X and Gnome on top and whatever packages you need/want after that and it will be even quicker because you only have the services YOU want.

No. They would not.
No. It would not.

Thanks for the replies. I realize now that there were similar threads before and I apologize.

I think I'll stick with Ubuntu. As a web developer, I love the Mac-like usability of Gnome, and as a Windows person from way back, am amazed at how much I can customize my Linux desktop. I am starting to really love Linux.

Ironically, while GNOME's default setup seems more Mac-like than KDE, KDE can be customized to be more Mac-like than GNOME. In particular, only KDE has the Mac-like option of putting the current application menu in the upper bar at the top of the screen (rather than within each window underneath the titlebars, like in Windows). Some people like this option because it wastes less screen space.

Does it matter what kind of car you drive??

In my case---for a rental on a business trip, I really don't care. But for something I am going to drive for 10 or more years, the question becomes more important.

As with cars, I think you will find many people trying things until they find what works---then they stop looking. With Linux, however, it costs nothing to have a stable-full. At home I now have Ubuntu for everyday work, and Arch for learning and experimenting. And I have room for at least one more...

That is very true. With KDE and superKaramba, you can have something very similar to the MacOS interface.
http://linuxgangster.org/modules.php...warticle&id=15

However, if you feel good with gnome, stick to it. If you value good looking desktop, install XGL.

Thank you. I found that superKaramba thing once back when SuSE 8.2 was new and couldn't get it to run, because I couldn't get sK installed properly. I've been looking for it for almost a year now since I started using Debian and sK works.

Well, call me boring, but I'm now using Fluxbox (on Debian Sarge). Instead of paying more money for a more powerful computer, I'm cutting back on Windows and/or Mac like eye-candy, and just running things efficiently on my old 450 MHz PC.

That's the important thing -- I'm glad you found a combination that works for you.

I think as a new user, most distros will seem pretty much the same. As you start becoming more familiar with Linux, you will probably become more aware of what you are wanting out of it. The beauty of Linux is the fact that the power is in your hands to make what you want of it. Some distros are geared towrds being easy to use, while others are geared towrds control over your system. Usually people tend to move towrds the later as their Linux knowledge expands.

Have fun with Linux!
...drkstr

I have a K62 400 Mhz and a Nvidia TNT2 with 512 Mb of Ram and a 6Gb HD.
I still value eye-candy for my desktop. I now have KDE and superKaramba. I tryed Gnome+Xgl but it really doesn't cut it. My desktop is very slow right, but damn that's pretty. And what is the use of the desktop if it is not pretty?