Which distro should I try next?

[Bodsda]

As the tile suggests, I want your opinion on what distro I should try next. The distro

Must

be free
being actively developed
have an active communtiy
be fast
be tried and tested (no new distros please)


Must not

use KDE
be Mint
not be bloated

[Kingsley]

Fedora. Final release of next version comes out in exactly 7 days.

[Bodsda]

Fedora. Final release of next version comes out in exactly 7 days.

Hmm, my last experiences with fedora where boring and... same-ey. I was hoping for something different, thanks for the opinion. Also its almost as bloated (which im adding to my must not list) as Ubuntu

[handy]

If you do choose to install Arch, be sure to go to the Arch Wiki, & follow the Beginners Guide to the letter.

If you don't, you will end up in big trouble.

[etnlIcarus]

I've played around with Debian (testing and unstable) and Arch. They're both relatively straight-forward, minimal distributions. Bit of dicking around (getting X working in Arch; getting policy kit to stop being a **** in Debian) but once you've gotten through the preliminaries and have started putting together your custom setup, they're very smooth.

Debian is very similar to Ubuntu, just without most of the downstream tweaks and fixes.

[evermooingcow]

Gentoo.

Great step-by-step installation guide.

Optimization/customization is mostly unmatched. Very minimal initial installation. You only add what you want.

I was surprised when my RAM consumption was cut to about half moving from Debian to Gentoo on my laptop. (I was very happy considering it only has 512MB..)

[binbash]

gentoo

[alwan_rose]

I recommend ubuntu, of course. One great reason why did I choosen Ubuntu was, that Ubuntu provides a so damned complete and easy-to-use online repositories..
Then, ubuntu also supported by many third party software and hardware developer...

I use three GUI on my Ubuntu : Gnome, KDE and XFCE...
At normal using (e.g. hear music and watching movies) I used Gnome. And if I need to work quickly, I choose XFCE.. And for 'eyecandy' refreshing, sometimes I use KDE..

I always agree that KDE is the most 'eyecandy' GUI on Linux, but of course KDE is the most 'hard' for using in minimum hardwares..

Basically, I was felt comfort in using Gnome, but I prefer choose KDE apps like K3B, KMplayer or Kolourpaint.

I ever using Mandriva, Fedora and SUSE. But I had a same big problem with them : THE REPOSITORY. I dont know where I can found the software repositories of that distros.

Finally I just can say : 'Yes, ubuntu is the 'best' distro to me...'

[handy]

Gentoo is fine, but be prepared to spend about 3 days before you have completed setting it up.

[Bodsda]

I recommend ubuntu, of course. One great reason why did I choosen Ubuntu was, that Ubuntu provides a so damned complete and easy-to-use online repositories..
Then, ubuntu also supported by many third party software and hardware developer...

I use three GUI on my Ubuntu : Gnome, KDE and XFCE...
At normal using (e.g. hear music and watching movies) I used Gnome. And if I need to work quickly, I choose XFCE.. And for 'eyecandy' refreshing, sometimes I use KDE..

I always agree that KDE is the most 'eyecandy' GUI on Linux, but of course KDE is the most 'hard' for using in minimum hardwares..

Basically, I was felt comfort in using Gnome, but I prefer choose KDE apps like K3B, KMplayer or Kolourpaint.

I ever using Mandriva, Fedora and SUSE. But I had a same big problem with them : THE REPOSITORY. I dont know where I can found the software repositories of that distros.

Finally I just can say : 'Yes, ubuntu is the 'best' distro to me...'

erm.. I meant what distro should i try next after ubuntu :)

I think i'm gonna give gentoo a go, the optimization stuff and the lack of pointless apps is a really big +1 :)

[itreius]

I suggest trying out Arch. It'll be less of a learning curve than Gentoo, but still give you back the feeling of learning more about Linux.
Passes all your requirements as well.

[waspbr]

from my experience, after trying ubuntu, I went to give PCLinuxOS a shot, which was nice but at the time it was not very friendly torwardsmy hardware.

then I tough I might check out linux Mint, which felt like (IMHO) a revamped version of ubuntu, though I thought that the mint update was a little bit annoying.

From then I tried a nice little XFCE slackware based distro called Wolvix, it was very fast and to some extent required a little more work, but still I could see myself using that again, it ran great on older hardware.

From Then I went to work for a firm that used fedora, so I got pretty cosy with fedora 9. aside from a few rmp and yum issues it ran fine.

though through all that I always kept an ubuntu installed in one of my computers and that is the one I am most comfortable using.

[handy]

I suggest trying out Arch. It'll be less of a learning curve than Gentoo, but still give you back the feeling of learning more about Linux.
Passes all your requirements as well.

+1 on that one too... :)

[gn2]

Antix.

[RedSquirrel]

I think i'm gonna give gentoo a go, the optimization stuff and the lack of pointless apps is a really big +1 :)

If you decide to try Gentoo, do not use the graphical installer. Follow the Gentoo Handbook (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/) for a stage3 installation.

Make sure you get your stage3 tarball from the current/ (.../releases/<your-architecture>/current/) directory on the mirrors, not from the 2008.0/ directory.

Just about any LiveCD will do. I have used the Gentoo-based sysresccd (http://www.sysresccd.org/Main_Page) as well as the Gentoo Minimal CD. The image for the latter can be found under the current/ directory.

[Bodsda]

If you decide to try Gentoo, do not use the graphical installer. Follow the Gentoo Handbook (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/) for a stage3 installation.

Make sure you get your stage3 tarball from the current/ (.../releases/<your-architecture>/current/) directory on the mirrors, not from the 2008.0/ directory.

Just about any LiveCD will do. I have used the Gentoo-based sysresccd (http://www.sysresccd.org/Main_Page) as well as the Gentoo Minimal CD. The image for the latter can be found under the current/ directory.

Damn, this post would have been useful 4 or so hours ago :) I already borked it via the installer :) Oh well, trying again soon

[dragos240]

Arch.

[RedSquirrel]

Damn, this post would have been useful 4 or so hours ago :) I already borked it via the installer :) Oh well, trying again soon

The manual stage3 installation method gives you a much better chance of a successful installation and you'll learn some things about Gentoo while you're installing it. Good luck. :)

[gnomeuser]

Moblin just release a beta of their version 2 release, completely new clutter based UI. Maybe worth a try?

[SuperSonic4]

Arch especially if you put *box on it although you can use a DE if you like. Just follow the beginner's guide

[AndyCooll]

Not sure why you've included Fedora and Debian if you've already tried Fedora and found it to be a bit samey. For yes though they're both worthy distros, they are "samey" and are only worth trying next if you want a gentle learning curve.

If you want a proper Linux learning curve then Arch is definitely the next one to try, for provided you follow the wiki install guide (which is excellent) it should be reasonably straightforward. However you'll certainly feel like you've learnt something at the end of it.

I'd try Slackware and Gentoo after Arch.

:cool:

[raymondh]

Am curios about gentoo ... but the itch just ain't strong enough yet :)

[kk0sse54]

I'd recommend Gentoo, it's a fantastic well built distro that will give complete control to you the user. However while you'll learn a lot about linux, a lot of the knowledge gained from Gentoo is gentoo specific and doesn't always reflect the vanilla way of doing things perhaps in the linux world. Hope you don't mind compiling though ;).

Slackware is another absolutely fantastic distro especially if you use something like slackbuilds. Personally this is the distro I've learned the most about linux with, plus it offers excellent control and stability.

Arch can be another good distro, some people like the build it from the ground up approach. Personally, lately I've drifted away from Arch as it's been giving me huge stability problems, of which I just find unacceptable.

[mamamia88]

just got my laptop back and am having way more problems with jaunty then i ever had with intrepid. thinking of wiping ubuntu and installing arch and using it exclusively for a time period to see how i like it. downloading it now

[wvmac]

Mandriva 2009.1 is a nice solid release. It feels fast. Its control center is hard to beat. Even though it is kde centric, its gnome version feels just as smooth.

[mamamia88]

in 3 minutes i am going to delete my ubuntu partition and install arch trying to dualboot with windows 7. gonna try to figure out how to get everything from nvidia drivers to wireless driver using google

[kk0sse54]

in 3 minutes i am going to delete my ubuntu partition and install arch trying to dualboot with windows 7. gonna try to figure out how to get everything from nvidia drivers to wireless driver using google

They created the Arch Beginner guide (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide) for a reason :roll:

[SuperSonic4]

in 3 minutes i am going to delete my ubuntu partition and install arch trying to dualboot with windows 7. gonna try to figure out how to get everything from nvidia drivers to wireless driver using google


pacman -S nvidia - it's usually that simple :p

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Wireless_Setup

[Chilli Bob]

On a different tack, why not try a few different Puplets. Just about any combination of WM & DE imaginable, large or small, attractive or ugly, plus it's easy to customise your own. They are fast, fun and practical.

http://www.puppylinux.org/?q=downloads/puplets

EDIT: Boxpup on page 3 has, for me, the best interface on any operating system I've used. If it was Ubuntu based with apt-get and the ubuntu repositories, it would be my dream OS.

[chris200x9]

w00t arch is winning

[samjh]

IMHO, there are two distros all Linux users should try (and successfully work with): Debian and Fedora.

Why? Because those two distros pretty much the big daddies of Linux distros. The vast majority of distros in existence can trace their bloodline back to those two distros. If you are familiar with both, you can work with 90% of Linux distros available.

Go for it.

[mamamia88]

you asked the same question that i want to know. jaunty is more buggy than i care for and i've never been one to revert to previous versions. so im downloadig anything i can get my hands on and seeing what sticks. i really don't care for the file browser in fedora so thats out. don't care for the slab in suse so thats out. i just want something that is pretty much straight gnome and not too difficult to setup. right now i'm downloading open solaris and am gonna try that. then i'm gonna get an arch dvd and try that. i tried the cd but it said no packages available and i don't want to do an internet install. can someone reccomend a distro that works well out of the box with nvidia, broadcom, and amd?

[PacSci]

If it wasn't for your "Not KDE" warning, I'd suggest GoboLinux. It's very inventive, and I like its package manager. I think it's possible to install GNOME in GoboLinux, but I've never actually done it.

Ubuntu and Gobo are the only distros I've tried. (Well, I TRIED Debian a few years back, but I formatted my hard drive during the install and got an error message. Twice.)

[mamamia88]

never heard of that. gonna try free bsd tommorow.

[chucky chuckaluck]

you could also try some live cds that load to ram, like slax, or wolvix. i use my slax cd whenever i hose my arch installation and have to rescue my wallpapers. btw, arch is great. it's fast, has a great package manager, great documentation, etc. (pretty colors...).

[mamamia88]

yeah i was going to install arch but i need the dvd instead of the cd because i don't want to do a network install and the cd doesn't seem to have any packages on it

[CholericKoala]

I use the cd the install the base stuff, like the network card. Then, I install the DE and WM from the network.

$ uname -r
2.6.29-ARCH

[tuxxy]

+1 Arch :p

[chucky chuckaluck]

yeah i was going to install arch but i need the dvd instead of the cd because i don't want to do a network install and the cd doesn't seem to have any packages on it

i reinstalled arch, including X and kdemod, the other night, in about 25 minutes. i was pretty drunk and, as usual, wasn't all that sure what i was doing. supposedly, gentoo has to be passed on to the grandkids if the installation is to be completed within the family.

[mamamia88]

then how come when i go to install it i select cd as the source but it says no packages on cd or something like that?

[chucky chuckaluck]

then how come when i go to install it i select cd as the source but it says no packages on cd or something like that?

what packages are you looking for?

edit: afaik, there is no arch dvd.

[mamamia88]

i don't know im downloading the core iso now see if that works better it's twice the size as the last one i downloaded. heck im downloading cent os, free bsd, and arch core iso right now about to go to sleep we'll see what os i end up running tommorow

[SomeGuyDude]

Hang on with Arch for now if you have an Intel video card. Things have not been going well lately.

[TheIdiotThatIsMe]

I'm definitely going to say Debian. One, there are a ton of distributions that base off it (Ubuntu), and it's always fun to see where they diverge. I just recently installed it and was surprised quite how different it was from Ubuntu (although mostly that's in setting everything up, there is no ubuntu-restricted-extras and no restricted drivers set up like there is in Ubuntu). But it's also rock-solid (if you choose stable, of course).

It's also extremely customizable, with it having (I believe) the largest amount of software in in a linux distro's repos, and incredible documentation. It also does have a strong community behind it (although their affairs are often quite public).

{Personal Experience}

I love Ubuntu, but have always had trouble with it in one way or another since 8.04 (from PulseAudio to Epiphany crashing, and in 9.04 my playstation emulators stopped working). Most of them were pretty fixable, until I ran into the last part of Playstation Emulators. Eventually I decided to go for an OS supported for a longer term, and without PulseAudio. Coming from Ubuntu, I went straight for it's heritage, Debian.

It took a little bit to setup my Nvidia driver, and codecs, since they aren't detected and there's no opt-to-install notifications on Debian. But the documentation was a great help, and it took less to setup than my first Ubuntu try (way back on 5.04), so I wasn't worried about it, especially knowing I won't have to again for a very long time.

So far I haven't experienced any crashes, and since they use ALSA instead of PulseAudio, I haven't had any of the problems associated with that, and my emulators are working perfectly.

[Bodsda]

Ok, it looks like a quad boot is in order

*Gentoo
*Slackware
*Arch
*windows

...hmm, the next few days are gonna be fun :)

[doorknob60]

Arch. Fast, up to date, and has an amazing wiki. Also pacman is easy and fast, and dependency problems are rare and can be ignored by simply adding a -d to the command :-)

[handy]

SliTaz is cool, though it comes standard with a custom Openbox setup.

It's tiny, LiveCD so you can check it out first, then learn to customize it to suit you.

[Wiebelhaus]

Debian!

[handy]

Great thread huh? :cry:

[anticapitalista]

As someone else has already suggested antiX, I'll suggest the fastest gnome distro for low end boxes.

Debris.

http://debrislinux.org/

[sertse]

Debris is pretty amazing; as my sig says, Ubuntu GNOME in a sub 200mb iso, *and* it also includes apps for most your computing tasks, (office, internet, media). It also runs quite well on slow machines. Use it get more attentions amongst the small distro catagory

[khelben1979]

My vote: Debian. The best distribution without a doubt, in my opinion.

[samjh]

i really don't care for the file browser in fedora so thats out.

That makes no sense. Fedora uses the same file browser as Ubuntu (Nautilus for Gnome, Dolphin for KDE). If you're talking about enabling browser window mode for Nautilus (which Ubuntu enables by default, but Debian and Fedora does not), then you can easily enable it in Nautilus' Preferences dialog.

[ArT1st]

hi everybody! ):P

I made my first linux expirience with Ubuntu.

Then i tried openSUSE which i still use at the moment.
When i tested Fedora it wasn't that great.

The next distro i would try is debian but at the moment i am thinking about to turn back to Ubuntu.

[mamamia88]

That makes no sense. Fedora uses the same file browser as Ubuntu (Nautilus for Gnome, Dolphin for KDE). If you're talking about enabling browser window mode for Nautilus (which Ubuntu enables by default, but Debian and Fedora does not), then you can easily enable it in Nautilus' Preferences dialog.

yeah i was talking about the new window opening all the time. but i just installed mint and it seems like a more polished ubuntu i say give it a try

[HappyFeet]

Mandriva gnome is pretty darn good. For sub-elite pc's, I would go with Puppy linux, or any number of lightweight distros. But that's just me.