[SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

Tux the penguin · 2010-08-07 02:26:44

I have been using Arch for a few months now, but I would like to try something different. I like the idea of building a system from the ground up, but as I am not a very advanced user, I would prefer something easier. I am considering switching to a Debian based distro such as Dreamlinux (with GNOME) or Sidux (with LXDE). What are your thoughts on that? Does anyone have experience with one of these or another Debian distro? How fast are they? It would be nice if they could boot in under thirty seconds on my computer. Recommendations on other distros would be nice too. Just give a few reasons why to use them. I would prefer something fairly fast and relatively easy to install (could be text based) that uses GNOME or LXDE (preferably GNOME) and is not rpm based. I would prefer something with alot of packages in the repositories. Also what are your thoughts on KDE? Is it as fast as GNOME and will compiz work with it? I heard that compiz doesn't work to well with kde-mod which is why I am not using Chakra (I tried to install GNOME after I installed Chakra, but it did not work).
Sorry that was long. Thanks in advance.

Last edited by Tux the penguin (2010-09-01 21:02:00)

frabjous · 2010-08-07 04:14:00

You'll probably get as many different responses as there are respondees; there are no "right" answers here.

I'm surprised you want to switch now. Arch gets a lot easier once you've got it up and running. We're you not able to get GNOME working with Arch?

Sidux seemed very buggy when I tried it (briefly). The other Debian-based distros I've tried are Ubuntu, Crunchbang and Linux Mint (Ubuntu based). Ubuntu and Mint weren't light enough for me, though were definitely easy. Crunchbang is fairly minimal, and fast booting. You might consider it. It doesn't use GNOME (by default), whereas the others do.

Asking about KDE vs. GNOME is one of those questions you can only really answer for yourself. People say KDE is heavier or slower than GNOME, though I didn't really notice that. However, it wasn't my style; parts of it were unnecessarily complicated and counterintuitive to me, and things never seemed to work just as I'd expected. I also just think it's uglier than GNOME. But that's just my opinion, and I can see how others would differ.

You can use Compiz with KDE, but KDE is better integrated with KWin, which is another compositing WM and offers similar effects. Using either of these however is going to mean a speed hit; it's hard to have both speed and eye-candy unless you've got truly bleeding edge hardware. You've got to decide between them.

Skripka · 2010-08-07 04:28:25

What do you mean "easier"?

It is all about personal taste.

Skripka · 2010-08-07 04:31:46

frabjous wrote:

You can use Compiz with KDE, but KDE is better integrated with KWin, which is another compositing WM and offers similar effects. Using either of these however is going to mean a speed hit; it's hard to have both speed and eye-candy unless you've got truly bleeding edge hardware. You've got to decide between them.

It depends on what you mean by "bleeding edge hardware". I was just talking to a person over in Newbie Corner-who was trying to install Arch on a PentiumII 350mHz, that probably dates to around 1998 if memory serves.

So long as you have a Core2Duo or better (or equivalent), and a decent GPU by Nvidia, there shouldn't really be an either or between eye-candy and performance.

Tux the penguin · 2010-08-07 15:45:30

Thanks for the replies. Has anyone used KahelOS? What about Sabayon? I know it is Gentoo based, but would it still be fairly easy to install/maintain? What about one of the BSDs?

Skripka · 2010-08-07 16:05:38

Tux the penguin wrote:

Thanks for the replies. Has anyone used KahelOS? What about Sabayon? I know it is Gentoo based, but would it still be fairly easy to install/maintain? What about one of the BSDs?

You continue to avoid defining what you mean by "easy" to maintain or "easy" to install.

Arch is "easy" to install if the Beginner's Guide is read cover to cover, and understood. Arch is "easy" to maintain if you know your box, your configs, and packages. Ubuntu and family are "easy" to install if you just want a drop-in windows replacement, where you don't need or want to understand your system.

There is "easy" and then there is "easy".

For desktop environments, pick one. I raise an eyebrow that you could not get Gnome to work on top of Chakra. Chakra *is* Arch, with a custom set of KDE packages-with all the background config done for you. Your questions lead me to wonder if you've installed Arch via the Beginner's Guide.

KDE runs great if you've got decent hardware.
Gnome runs great
LXDE runs great
*box runs great

It depends on what you want. Which you haven't defined

Last edited by Skripka (2010-08-07 16:06:51)

splittercode · 2010-08-07 16:40:57

Your questions are so numerous and broad that they are unanswerable, really. Do your own research, find out how system maintanence works in each distro, install a few, and decide for yourself. You'll get a lot more relevant info from 20 minutes of focused googling and reading distro documentation than all the eventual posts in this thread combined. I am sure of it.

Tux the penguin · 2010-08-07 17:01:39

Sorry. By easy to install I mean that I don't want to do a lot of editing configuration files. I want a desktop environment to already be installed. By easy to maintain I mean that I don't want to have to edit configuration files a lot because I usually don't know what I am doing. I am just following a guide. I want to come back to Arch when I am more familiar with Linux. I could not get GNOME on Chakra because there were conflicts whenever I tried to install it. I tried to uninstall the program it was conflicting with which caused dependency issues. I will google this awhile and try some distros in virtualbox. Sorry I asked so many questions and that they were vague.

Mountainjew · 2010-08-07 17:50:53

As others have said, there is no right answer. You'll have to do like the rest of us did, and distro hop until you find a distro that fits your personality. And asking these things will always infuriate fanboys, who insist their distro is perfect. But you just have to find the right one by yourself. Think of it like choosing a wife or gf.

Tux the penguin · 2010-08-07 18:12:54

You all are right that there is no right answer. I should have thought it through before posting this. I will continue to google this. Sorry once again.

splittercode · 2010-08-07 18:18:00

Tux the penguin wrote:

Sorry I asked so many questions and that they were vague.

No need to be sorry . Your willingness to actually take peoples advice and go do some reading/testing suggests you probably have enough patience/maturity to come back to arch in the future. I've seen more than a few new users respond much more childishly than you to situations like this.

Cape · 2010-08-08 12:20:43

Right but clarification apart...
There are a shitload of distros around, but most of them are low quality, poorly maintained (only due to the lack of developers!) systems. For example: sabayon. Sabayon is a very good idea, but it's not easy to maintain such a distro. So the final product is an unstable, "un-updated" system wich adds a lot of complexity and confusion without a real benefit.

So if i was you, i would stick with one of the big:
1- openSUSE: very good packages and a perfect KDE4 integration. SUSE has more developers than any other distro. It has a GUI config utility that covers almost the entire system. Best choice if you actually want to learn the basics of linux.

2- ububtu: based on debian. The most used distro so far, so you'll find plenty of guide/packages around. Beware: they patch their packages alot, so it's not a good choice if you then want to switch to another distro.

3- fedora: A super duper repository and some very good defaults. (stick to this if you want gnome)

These are all "high quality" system that will help you in your approach to the Linux and FOSS world without causing too many headaches

Stalafin · 2010-08-08 13:15:10

My personal opinion is - if you really want to understand what you are doing with the machine (i.e. editing config files, etc), using a Distribution like Suse, Ubuntu, Fedora and the like is not a good idea. Certainly, you can learn everything there as well, but since everything is already running out of the box you don't have to deal with the system underneath. That is, the threshold to start working with the system underneath and not just with what you are given is a lot higher, since these distributions tend to be less accessible.

For me, I only started to understand what I am exactly doing after I switched from Ubuntu to Archlinux (which is almost 3 years ago). I would recommend you to really follow the beginner's guide, set up a working system, and then from there continuously adjust the system to your liking.

You can certainly try to use Gentoo, Slackware, or even Linux from Scratch - but I do not see the advantage of using those distributions as compared to Archlinux. Arch is very well documented, the starting threshold even for a beginner is low, and if you want to get to more advanced stuff you can easily do it.

Galera · 2010-08-10 05:27:33

As Stalafin says, I also belive that if you stick with the beginner's guide from the wiki, you'll get sistem up and working just fine, and you can try all DE's that you want without having to install another distro again.

I started using arch with xfce, then switched to openbox, now i like KDE a lot.

Mustard · 2010-08-10 08:34:21

Debian would be a good first choice, at least in terms of package management, it will be easy to administer.

RJQ · 2010-08-10 16:10:34

Every thing is difficult when you try it the first time knowing nothing (or almost nothing) about it, If you don't want to deal with installation set ups then keep trying any live desktop until you got one that "works" flawlessly with you hardware. there is no such thing as easiness, yes it may require less steps to set it up but that would be all. You said first that you like the idea of building your own system, well I think that arch is not complicated at all, in fact building the system in debian is about the same, just different names and a few different steps, the most complicated set ups can be "guessed" by the installation software of the core system in most distros, now if you "must" have a no arch system well that is another story, but if you give a try you will see that building arch is not difficult, I am a totally computer knowledge-less person with four arch systems (gnome, kde, fxce, lxde) in the same hdd, that said it all. need some help? wiki + forum = no hassle. : )

dunz0r · 2010-08-10 16:14:11

From what I can read from your posts it seems you want something that is easy to install(without knowing what you're doing) and requires no maintenance. It seems that you want Ubuntu to me.

http://www.ubuntu.org

arinlares · 2010-08-10 23:27:40

Might want to correct that link, dunz0r.

If you don't want Arch, but still want to customize a system, I recommend Debian, or an Ubuntu minimal install (not to be confused with their alternate installer). I've had some experience with both, and they are great options for anybody wanting a Debian-like system that they built on their own.

For graphical distros, if you want lightweight, check out some Slackware-based ones, as well as Debian based ones. I found Salix to be pretty nice, if lacking in repo goodness. Going a little heavier, I actually like Fedora the most, and it's got spins for various DEs (LXDE, XFCE and KDE, I think), and Ubuntu as my last reccomendation.

KlavKalashj · 2010-08-10 23:40:49

My tips for learning are two things: reading and problem solving. Pick a task, google it, read a bit about it, try to fix it. Could be anything from changing a font to switching from a DE to a WM. Your biggest task right now seems to be getting a nice system running. Start at the Beginners Guide, install the base system, pick a DE or WM of choice and install it. It's a LOT easier if you have a second computer to always have the wiki or Google available.

Tux the penguin · 2010-08-11 02:04:47

Thanks for the replies. I guess Arch really isn't that hard. I always follow a guide for the installation, but when it comes to editing system configuration files, I am lost, but do okay with a guide. The hardest part for me is configuring xorg correctly and setting up a gui. There always seems to be a small issue with something every time I install Arch that I didn't have with distros that automatically configured X and detected hardware. But I could probably get my system set up good with another try. So, just forget about the easy thing. You are right that Arch can be easy enough by following the beginners guide. (I was actually following another guide to install Arch. The beginners guide would probably be better) But I still would like to try a new distro, but not necessarily to find something "easier". So still I would like suggestions on good distributions (and why they are good)for me to try out. Forget about the questions I asked about GNOME and KDE in my initial post. I will continue to google this and read the beginners guide. Thanks

Kpunkt · 2010-08-13 09:36:32

To be honest, there is usually nothing fancy in most not-really-mainstream distros. If you don't like the default DE, install a new one. If you don't need some of the configuration tools the distro provides, don't use them. Simple.

Trying out new distros which are just base on another distro without offering significant improvements won't get you anywhere. Stuff that matters is package management/available packages and system configuration. IMO, there aren't many distros which offer decent supply of both, but I would recommend Arch Linux and Debian + some debian-based (Ubuntu and sidux).

I still have no idea whats "easy" for you, but I can tell that most of the distros are "simple". Package management is either apt or pacman so there's nothing to worry about and configuration style is editing config files for arch and debian, fancy GUIs in ubuntu and some helpers in sidux to get stuff done.

Short version: Simple, command line -> Arch; Simple, GUI -> Ubuntu

Choose one and stick with it and only change when there are problems that can't be solved

Tux the penguin · 2010-08-16 00:42:38

I tried some distros in virtualbox like Sidux and Dreamlinux. I think I will stay with Arch. I am going to install it tomorrow. Thanx

Tux the penguin · 2010-08-19 17:35:01

I installed it sucessfully following the beginners guide. Thanks for persuading me to give Arch another try.

Carlwill · 2010-08-22 08:37:06

I started using Debian as one of my 1st Linux distributions 10 years ago. I still use Debian Linux at work and love it dearly since it was my 1st love. Nothing will ever come close to Arch Linux. It's the best distribution I have ever used.

While Debian is now 17 years old and much more mature, I don't like their vehement stance on free software. I can't stand how they insist on making everyone's home directory public to anyone on the system. I feel like your home directory should be private and only accessible by you. Also creating user name groups for each person is annoying. These are all things that can be customized post install but if I have 50 users, I don't want 50 different groups for each user...super annoying.

Other than those things, Debian is amazing and their package manager is one of the best in the business!

phildg · 2010-08-24 21:59:03

@ Carlwill: `umask 0720` in the appropriate configs will sort out the permissions, and there is nothing stopping you specifying the users' primary group when creating a new user. To me those are non issues. I agree the free software stance is annoying.

I've seen benchmarks of various tasks in a default Ubuntu install and an Arch installation, and the results were nearly identical. Buggered if I can remember the source though.

Just to throw another alternative in there how about Xfce? I'm running Xubuntu (more or less). Xfce and Compiz as the window manager. Reliable and fast, and tbh on the command line I'm hard pushed to tell the difference between this and Debian Testing I have on a low responsibility server.

This isn't very coherent, but I don't to write reams. Sounds like Ubuntu fits your bill. The best thing to do is get out there and make your own mind up.

PS (I do run Arch Linux too, I'm not some random Ubuntu user trolling)

Last edited by phildg (2010-08-24 22:00:55)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-08-07 02:26:44

[SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#2 2010-08-07 04:14:00

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#3 2010-08-07 04:28:25

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#4 2010-08-07 04:31:46

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#5 2010-08-07 15:45:30

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#6 2010-08-07 16:05:38

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#7 2010-08-07 16:40:57

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#8 2010-08-07 17:01:39

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#9 2010-08-07 17:50:53

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#10 2010-08-07 18:12:54

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#11 2010-08-07 18:18:00

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#12 2010-08-08 12:20:43

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#13 2010-08-08 13:15:10

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#14 2010-08-10 05:27:33

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#15 2010-08-10 08:34:21

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#16 2010-08-10 16:10:34

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#17 2010-08-10 16:14:11

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#18 2010-08-10 23:27:40

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#19 2010-08-10 23:40:49

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#20 2010-08-11 02:04:47

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#21 2010-08-13 09:36:32

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#22 2010-08-16 00:42:38

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#23 2010-08-19 17:35:01

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#24 2010-08-22 08:37:06

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

#25 2010-08-24 21:59:03

Re: [SOLVED]Debian/NewDistro

Board footer