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?

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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?)

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.

Also, might I add that I don't care if the distro uses closed-source programs.

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.:(

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

Not only closed-source. I meant I accept packages which are closed-source, but of course I also want open-source packages.

+1
Good advice to live by.


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.

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. :p

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.

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?:

"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.