- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Distro Selectors: How Accurate Are They?
As a rule, I generally reply back in saying that I believe Ubuntu is a good compromise for me. It offers me the level of control and the ability to customize it, while enjoying access to the fastest growing distribution community on the planet. |
|
|
Comments (24)
4 earlier comments in the full thread.
I wish these distro choosers had been around in 1998. I've been using Slackware all this time, but it turns out I'm not advanced enough to even try installing it.
> turns out I'm not advanced enough to even try installing it.
In 1998 I'm not sure anyone was ;-)
In 1998 I'm not sure anyone was ;-)
> In 1998 I'm not sure anyone was ;-)
How about 1994? :)
How about 1994? :)
Well, zengenie gets the two distributions I'm most likely to use right: Slackware and Gentoo. They leave out Debian though.
Desktop Linux thinks Debian is for experts and Slackware and Gentoo are for gurus. I think they're at least five years behind the times.
Desktop Linux thinks Debian is for experts and Slackware and Gentoo are for gurus. I think they're at least five years behind the times.
'96 was when I first tried GNU/Linux. Slack 1.? Never got past the root/boot floppies. Oh well.
I think my initial linux install was somewhere in 94-96 with a slackware installed from floppies.
:)
Ah the memories...
1995, Debian .92 on 14 floppies. I still have the box around here somewhere, different motherboard though. The 386-33 had an on-board battery meltdown, the acid caused some of the traces to lift right off the board. Ick.
Being able to read the boot messages _as they happened_ was an interesting exercise. But it ran Xwindows, Netscape and everything else I wanted...except Ultima Online. So I kept it as a server and went back to Windows for the "desktop" until 2000 when Win95 finally melted down.
The only time I tried one of the "distro pickers" it said "Debian", so I guess I was right at the time. The community development was what drew me in first, and by the time I'd heard much about other distributions I was completely hooked on Apt and .DEB and couldn't ever make a change work out.
But I do keep a Knoppix disk around for when the wife's Windows box chokes.
Being able to read the boot messages _as they happened_ was an interesting exercise. But it ran Xwindows, Netscape and everything else I wanted...except Ultima Online. So I kept it as a server and went back to Windows for the "desktop" until 2000 when Win95 finally melted down.
The only time I tried one of the "distro pickers" it said "Debian", so I guess I was right at the time. The community development was what drew me in first, and by the time I'd heard much about other distributions I was completely hooked on Apt and .DEB and couldn't ever make a change work out.
But I do keep a Knoppix disk around for when the wife's Windows box chokes.
I just think it's misleading to tell people that Slackware and Debian are for advanced users. As long as you're curious and willing to learn, your skill level doesn't really matter.
> I just think it's misleading to tell people that Slackware and Debian are for advanced users.
The Desktop Linux sites appears to rate distributions as guru, expert, intermediate, knowledgeable, or beginner. Actually, I'd agree with them that Slackware is for experts, but they seem to think it's for gurus. I don't think any of the major distributions require guru status anymore, though I've never tried Gentoo, so I can't really speak to it.
Debian is even easier, and is at worst intermediate.
The problems with Slackware are not the install process, but the system configuration and the installation of software not included in the distribution.
The Desktop Linux sites appears to rate distributions as guru, expert, intermediate, knowledgeable, or beginner. Actually, I'd agree with them that Slackware is for experts, but they seem to think it's for gurus. I don't think any of the major distributions require guru status anymore, though I've never tried Gentoo, so I can't really speak to it.
Debian is even easier, and is at worst intermediate.
The problems with Slackware are not the install process, but the system configuration and the installation of software not included in the distribution.
> Debian is even easier, and is at worst intermediate.
If I can use Debian, yes, it is at worst intermediate. What is funny to me is that Ubuntu is usually called a beginner's distribution. Aside from a few things like changing the fstab once in a while, running Debian has required little more knowledge than Ubuntu. I run Debian, don't know much about Linux, and don't need to know much about Linux.
If I can use Debian, yes, it is at worst intermediate. What is funny to me is that Ubuntu is usually called a beginner's distribution. Aside from a few things like changing the fstab once in a while, running Debian has required little more knowledge than Ubuntu. I run Debian, don't know much about Linux, and don't need to know much about Linux.
I'd say that installing gentoo without the fancy graphical installer would probably rate as intermediate, installing with the graphical installer would probably be knowledgeable.
As for general package maintenance and such (command line package maintenance anyway), it seems to me to be about the same as debian from the little I've played with debian so far. With the exception of the available use flags and such, but that's fairly easy to learn.
Of course that's based on my personal definitions of the terms. :)
As for general package maintenance and such (command line package maintenance anyway), it seems to me to be about the same as debian from the little I've played with debian so far. With the exception of the available use flags and such, but that's fairly easy to learn.
Of course that's based on my personal definitions of the terms. :)
When I did my recent Debian 4.0 network install, it looked eerily like an "alternate install" of Ubuntu ... except the Debian install worked. For Ubuntu/Xubuntu, only the live CDs have worked for me.
I do like the add/del programs utility in Ubuntu -- for new users, it's crystal clear. But soon enough, you're going to want/need Synaptic and apt-get, so you could be running Debian.
Like some have said -- take a test drive and see what works best for you and your hardware.
I've been doing some Debian 4.0 vs. Ubuntu 6.06LTS tests (I know I should be running Feisty -- and I do have the ISO, but I haven't burned and installed it yet). So far, Debian has a slight edge (it's GNOME vs. GNOME) in program-load times, and it feels a bit quicker on my lousy test box (a hacked 1 GHz Maxspeed Maxterm thin client with 256 MB RAM).
I remain surprised at how polished Debian is on the desktop -- you'd think that Ubuntu had some kind of super-secret in terms of ease of use. Not the case.
That said, I need to give SimplyMepis a try, too. I love MepisLite, but it seems at a dead end as far as development goes.
I do like the add/del programs utility in Ubuntu -- for new users, it's crystal clear. But soon enough, you're going to want/need Synaptic and apt-get, so you could be running Debian.
Like some have said -- take a test drive and see what works best for you and your hardware.
I've been doing some Debian 4.0 vs. Ubuntu 6.06LTS tests (I know I should be running Feisty -- and I do have the ISO, but I haven't burned and installed it yet). So far, Debian has a slight edge (it's GNOME vs. GNOME) in program-load times, and it feels a bit quicker on my lousy test box (a hacked 1 GHz Maxspeed Maxterm thin client with 256 MB RAM).
I remain surprised at how polished Debian is on the desktop -- you'd think that Ubuntu had some kind of super-secret in terms of ease of use. Not the case.
That said, I need to give SimplyMepis a try, too. I love MepisLite, but it seems at a dead end as far as development goes.
@ Steven_Rosenber
While Gnome may be the default, the reality may not be. I know a lot of guys running Debian. Almost all of them have opted for the KDE desktop, and that's what I hear people recommending. What's really nice is that most don't have to (and don't) limit themselves to QT or GTK as far as apps are concerned.
While Gnome may be the default, the reality may not be. I know a lot of guys running Debian. Almost all of them have opted for the KDE desktop, and that's what I hear people recommending. What's really nice is that most don't have to (and don't) limit themselves to QT or GTK as far as apps are concerned.
Quoting:What's really nice is that most don't have to (and don't) limit themselves to QT or GTK as far as apps are concerned.
I just wish that the base GTK and QT libraries had a "recommended" flag on their theme engines and default theme. Right now, QT aps look hirruble on GNOME and vice versa. You can add the theme engines yourself, but it would be nice if it came by default.
> QT aps look hirruble on GNOME and vice versa
That may still be true in Gnome, but KDE has had that under control for some time. With anything past sarge you don't need (and shouldn't use) the qt theme engine. Just go to kcontrol>appearance & themes>colors>check 'apply colors to non-KDE applications' and hit apply.
Really, the only app that doesn't play well appearance wise (with anyone) is that damned OO.
That may still be true in Gnome, but KDE has had that under control for some time. With anything past sarge you don't need (and shouldn't use) the qt theme engine. Just go to kcontrol>appearance & themes>colors>check 'apply colors to non-KDE applications' and hit apply.
Really, the only app that doesn't play well appearance wise (with anyone) is that damned OO.
Quoting:Just go to kcontrol>appearance & themes>colors>check 'apply colors to non-KDE applications' and hit apply.
That's what I mean actually. That uses the gtk-qt library and it's installed on KDE. The GNOME equivalent uses qt3-config but that one isn't installed by default sadly.
Quoting:Really, the only app that doesn't play well appearance wise (with anyone) is that damned OO.
Surprising. It integrates well with Gnome. Try installing openoffice-gtk and openoffice-gnome and see if KDE will recognise it as a GTK app and apply it's theme to it through gtk-qt.
> That's what I mean actually. That uses the gtk-qt library and it's installed on KDE.
Actually, it's not any more, believe me, I just did an extensive search. Not sure what they use to do this but it works without the original gtk-qt or the engine.
> installing openoffice-gtk and openoffice-gnome and see if KDE will recognise it as a GTK app
Cool, great tip! Now that one worked :D
There is an openoffice.org-kde package, but the 'crystal' icons are so not what I do.
Actually, it's not any more, believe me, I just did an extensive search. Not sure what they use to do this but it works without the original gtk-qt or the engine.
> installing openoffice-gtk and openoffice-gnome and see if KDE will recognise it as a GTK app
Cool, great tip! Now that one worked :D
There is an openoffice.org-kde package, but the 'crystal' icons are so not what I do.
> the 'crystal' icons are so not what I do.
I prefer the tango icons: http://www.madman2k.net/comments/70
I prefer the tango icons: http://www.madman2k.net/comments/70
> I prefer the tango icons:
Lol, with tango icons and the kde color theme: http://jimfarnsworth.com/oodesk.jpg
Lol, with tango icons and the kde color theme: http://jimfarnsworth.com/oodesk.jpg
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Nothing beats Debian, so, in general, I'd agree except for someone with no prior Linux experience. Because it's deb based I would recomend Mepis over PCLOS to a new Linux user. Later on, the transition to Debian proper is an easy one.