Feeling adventurous: what other distro should I try? (criteria within)

[SomeGuyDude]

I had fun with Ubuntu, and I sure as heck like it a lot. However, in the interest of "making sure I have the best for me", I'm interested in trying out another distro.

I have the LiveCD of DreamLinux at the moment, and it's all right, but I didn't get much of a chance to try it since it doesn't recognize my wireless and I don't have an actual ethernet cable. The dock was a little too OSX-ish for me, but I admit it seemed VERY slick and I'm heavily tempted to install it.

Anyway, here's my hardware:

HP dv6244us notebook
Intel Core 2 Duo T5200 (1.6GHz)
2GB RAM
120GB HD
Intel shared graphics thingamabob
Intel wireless

Now here's what I'd like to have in a distro:

- Desktop environment is not important. I like GNOME but am more than willing to try the other.

- A balance between speed and appearance. I have plenty of hardware for Linux, so something with an ultra-light footprint isn't necessary but I'd like a little more speed than I have now (login on bootup is KILLING me).

- Compiz type effects and a dock. I don't care if they come standard, I'd just like to be able to put 'em on there.

- Doesn't generally require terminal work. I'm not confident enough to do everything by command line, but if I have some guidance I can do it when necessary.

- Mostly ready upon install. Codecs and apps I'm not averse to installing myself and I'm not going to bitch if it's not full featured, but I don't want to have to install something for my display and other basics. ESPECIALLY in the case of my wireless, which can be kind of a dealbreaker. I need to be able to hop online and get onto support forums to get the step-by-step.

- A LiveCD would be nice so I can try it out, but if something is really heavily suggested that doesn't have one, that's fine.

I'm sure I'm not thinking of something, so if there's anything I'd need to point out or specify/clarify, let me know. I tried Xandros recently and was not a fan, but the most recent versions of the others was Fedora Core 4 or SUSE back around 8, I think.

[Espreon]

Try Sabayon Linux.

www.sabyonlinux.org

It includes proprietary software, drivers, and codecs, lots of good software and an appealing interface.

[SomeGuyDude]

I like it. I like it a lot, actually, it's downloading right now. It seems gorgeous. I'm assuming I can get AWN or Kiba on this thing? I see it's got Compiz.

Fix your URL, though, you dropped an 'a'.

[SomeGuyDude]

Whoa wait, hold one a tick. This is Gentoo based? I'm... not sure I'm ready for anything that advanced. I'm one of those guys who got Ubuntu running and was all "teehee I are elite Linux usar now," am I going to be able to handle this monster without ripping my hair out?

[xeth_delta]

As far as I know Sabayon is Gentoo based, but uses precompiled binary packages, at least for the initial installation (someone please correct me if I am wrong). Why not give it a try?

If you want to try another desktop environment you could have a look at Kubuntu.

Xeth

[tbroderick]

Why not just install in virtualbox or whatever?

[mips]

Whoa wait, hold one a tick. This is Gentoo based? I'm... not sure I'm ready for anything that advanced. I'm one of those guys who got Ubuntu running and was all "teehee I are elite Linux usar now," am I going to be able to handle this monster without ripping my hair out?

Advanced ? I would not call it that advanced, sure it gives you more options though.

The Sabayon install is easier than the Ubuntu one. Once installed you do not have to worry about video drivers, codecs, dvd playback etc as it is all there.

Package management is different to Ubuntu/Debian but no harder I would say. Things are just done a bit differently, thats all.

[anaconda]

How about Sidux

Not sure if wireless will work out of the box though. And might need using terminal a bit too.
But it will always have the most recent debian packages, so you would newer need to upgrade to a new version!!!

[Extreme Coder]

Mandriva Linux 2008
Get the One CD
It's a LiveCD, installable, has all the codecs you need, has nVidia and ATI drivers, has wireless drivers, has basically everything :P

[de_valentin]

I liked SymphonyOS alot and i haven't tried the newest version but its definately very cool and worth a try. And PCLinuxOS is also a good candidate I think only thing that didn't work out of the box was ntfs acces.

Edit: both are livecd's

[SunnyRabbiera]

PClinux is also a good one, but it requires ndswrapper I think

[AndyCooll]

Here's a good place to get ideas from (which most people seem to miss), one of the other sections of these forums: Other OS Talk (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=147).

:cool:

[K.Mandla]

Here's a good place to get ideas from (which most people seem to miss), one of the other sections of these forums: Other OS Talk (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=147).
As in, "Moved to Other OS Talk." :mrgreen:

[mindtrick]

Whoa wait, hold one a tick. This is Gentoo based? I'm... not sure I'm ready for anything that advanced. I'm one of those guys who got Ubuntu running and was all "teehee I are elite Linux usar now," am I going to be able to handle this monster without ripping my hair out?

Sabayon does not provide a binary internet repository, so you use Gentoo repositories. And it compiles software from source code, which means installation time is long. For example, "emerge pidgin" took more than 10 minutes for me.

[SomeGuyDude]

Sabayon does not provide a binary internet repository, so you use Gentoo repositories. And it compiles software from source code, which means installation time is long. For example, "emerge pidgin" took more than 10 minutes for me.

Is there an advantage to this that I'm unaware of? Why would someone WANT to have to compile everything from source? Obviously there's an advantage, I just can't think of what it is for the life of me.

[Cochise]

speed is the advantage, if its compiled from source for your machine it'll be a lot faster

[SomeGuyDude]

speed is the advantage, if its compiled from source for your machine it'll be a lot faster

Interesting.

Well, I have the discs for Mandriva 2008 and Sabayon 3.4f now, so we'll see how those treat me. I doubt I'll switch, but it's fun to take a look at alternatives.

[Extreme Coder]

Ok, I will be watching here ( or atleast I hope I remember to) to see how it goes :)

[mips]

Sabayon does not provide a binary internet repository, so you use Gentoo repositories. And it compiles software from source code, which means installation time is long. For example, "emerge pidgin" took more than 10 minutes for me.

Not entirely true! You could get precompiled versions of Open Office, KDE, Skype etc as binary packages.

[new2*buntu]

I think that Linux Mint would be good for you, although it is quite similar to Ubuntu (Ubuntu-based), so if you want to try something completely new you may not like it. For me, it looks A LOT better than Ubuntu's ugly brown theme, has all of the multimedia codecs by default, Compiz Fusion, mintInstall, the mintMenu, and even a graphical configuration tool for ndiswrapper.
I am very happy with using it.

[SomeGuyDude]

Ok, I will be watching here ( or atleast I hope I remember to) to see how it goes :)

I'm on Mandriva's LiveCD right now and I have to admit, it's LOVELY. It's just as snappy, and I'm starting to really like KDE here. It's pretty snappy, I just don't know my way around it for balls.

Sabayon's LiveDVD didn't work at all, so I didn't get enough of a chance to fiddle with it, but I really did like what I saw. I'll try burning another one.

Dream wasn't great. Mint I have sitting around but not too keen on.

EDIT: Got some problems now using Mandriva actually installed. Looks nice, but hm. Bootup is VERY slow, for one.

[screaminj3sus]

Mandriva Linux 2008
Get the One CD
It's a LiveCD, installable, has all the codecs you need, has nVidia and ATI drivers, has wireless drivers, has basically everything :P

He has 2 gb ram, just to let you know if you install the one cd you wil have to install a different kernel because the one cd only supports 1 gb and will only detect that much.

[RAV TUX]

I had fun with Ubuntu, and I sure as heck like it a lot. However, in the interest of "making sure I have the best for me", I'm interested in trying out another distro.

I have the LiveCD of DreamLinux at the moment, and it's all right, but I didn't get much of a chance to try it since it doesn't recognize my wireless and I don't have an actual ethernet cable. The dock was a little too OSX-ish for me, but I admit it seemed VERY slick and I'm heavily tempted to install it.

Anyway, here's my hardware:

HP dv6244us notebook
Intel Core 2 Duo T5200 (1.6GHz)
2GB RAM
120GB HD
Intel shared graphics thingamabob
Intel wireless

Now here's what I'd like to have in a distro:

- Desktop environment is not important. I like GNOME but am more than willing to try the other.

- A balance between speed and appearance. I have plenty of hardware for Linux, so something with an ultra-light footprint isn't necessary but I'd like a little more speed than I have now (login on bootup is KILLING me).

- Compiz type effects and a dock. I don't care if they come standard, I'd just like to be able to put 'em on there.

- Doesn't generally require terminal work. I'm not confident enough to do everything by command line, but if I have some guidance I can do it when necessary.

- Mostly ready upon install. Codecs and apps I'm not averse to installing myself and I'm not going to bitch if it's not full featured, but I don't want to have to install something for my display and other basics. ESPECIALLY in the case of my wireless, which can be kind of a dealbreaker. I need to be able to hop online and get onto support forums to get the step-by-step.

- A LiveCD would be nice so I can try it out, but if something is really heavily suggested that doesn't have one, that's fine.

I'm sure I'm not thinking of something, so if there's anything I'd need to point out or specify/clarify, let me know. I tried Xandros recently and was not a fan, but the most recent versions of the others was Fedora Core 4 or SUSE back around 8, I think.Try PC-BSD, all though I am more of a Ubuntu user. You may like the difference of BSD?

[-grubby]

tried Debian?

[SomeGuyDude]

He has 2 gb ram, just to let you know if you install the one cd you wil have to install a different kernel because the one cd only supports 1 gb and will only detect that much.

Ah-HAH! That would explain why it told me I had half the ram I thought.

Anyway, here's what I discovered today.

1) I suck at doing partitions. I managed to make the thing stop recognizing my Ubuntu portion, so I need to once again start from the beginning.

2) Sabayon may be great for some, but it's slow as hell for me.

3) Mandriva's nice but buggy. I couldn't log out, the system locked up every time and I ended up having to shut down via the power button.

4) I'm going to try Mint, if that doesn't work it's back to Ubuntu and I'm never complaining ever again. I haven't tried Debian yet, though I'd consider it if I didn't have to use another DVD as opposed to just a CD.

[RAV TUX]

Ah-HAH! That would explain why it told me I had half the ram I thought.

Anyway, here's what I discovered today.

1) I suck at doing partitions. I managed to make the thing stop recognizing my Ubuntu portion, so I need to once again start from the beginning.

2) Sabayon may be great for some, but it's slow as hell for me.

3) Mandriva's nice but buggy. I couldn't log out, the system locked up every time and I ended up having to shut down via the power button.

4) I'm going to try Mint, if that doesn't work it's back to Ubuntu and I'm never complaining ever again. I haven't tried Debian yet, though I'd consider it if I didn't have to use another DVD as opposed to just a CD.

Before you give up completely try gOS (http://thinkgos.com/)

[Frak]

try symphony or arch. You'd love arch.

[SomeGuyDude]

Whew, okay, back to the status quo and feeling comfortable.

Funny thing is how easy it is to set things up again. I've got it down to a damn science. Install -> compiz -> AWN -> gnome-look.org for my themes -> automatix -> WINE.

I've got Arch in my sights, but here was my end conclusions based on just piddling around:

Sabayon - If it had been more responsive, I'd be on it now. Full featured, just felt "complete". Ugly as sin, however. The red is TERRIBLE.

Mandriva - Polished, pretty. I will never use KDE, however. I love the software, hate Konquerer with a passion.

Mint - Nice, but since it's based on Ubuntu that means it's behind Ubuntu. I might as well have the genuine article and be on top of things.

Dream - Very nice. If I had been able to get my wireless going I'd probably use it. The dock, while OSX-y, is cool and it's nice to just have it default. Still, somehow it felt slightly "off".

Arch? I'll think about it.

[mivo]

I would also recommend Arch, just because I feel it offers a wonderful balance between "just works" and "challenge". I really fell in love with it recently, and it's been a great learning experience without any deep frustrations.

You get a lean basic system that runs (will take you about two hours to set up, plus download time), and then you start adding to it and making changing to shape it into the setup of your dreams, tailored to your individual needs.

It's been a satisfying and rewarding experience so far, and I learned new things about Linux. I highly recommend to follow the Beginner's Guide (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide) and make good use of the Wiki -- you'll have learned a lot already by the time you have installed it. :) Arch is the only distro so far that has not choked on my hardware or required any special boot options. It detected everything properly.

The next step would be to "grasp" the concept of the AUR (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_User_Guidelines), how it is different from the binary repositories (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Repositories), and how it completes them. You'll find the whole Arch packaging system to be a clever, efficient and user-friendly mix of Debian-based distros, Gentoo and FreeBSD. It's also a rolling distro, so the software evolves and there are no releases like Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. has them (this also means no re-installation or waiting for new versions).

[Extreme Coder]

Mandriva - Polished, pretty. I will never use KDE, however. I love the software, hate Konquerer with a passion.
Well, since you're an Ubuntu user I'm not surprised you didn't like KDE.
But there is also a GNOME LiveCD too, you know ;)

ftp://distrib-coffee.ipsl.jussieu.fr/pub/linux/MandrivaLinux/official/iso/2008.0/mandriva-linux-2008-one-GNOME-cdrom-i586.iso

Let me know if you try it :D

[SomeGuyDude]

Well, since you're an Ubuntu user I'm not surprised you didn't like KDE.
But there is also a GNOME LiveCD too, you know ;)

ftp://distrib-coffee.ipsl.jussieu.fr/pub/linux/MandrivaLinux/official/iso/2008.0/mandriva-linux-2008-one-GNOME-cdrom-i586.iso

Let me know if you try it :D

Hey, I gave it a fair shake! :lolflag:

Believe it or not, I had no real idea of what KDE was like beyond my toying with Kubuntu a few months ago, and as many here said Kubuntu isn't a good example of KDE I didn't hold it against 'em.

The file browser is just RIDICULOUSLY muddled for me. It felt like there was stuff absolutely everywhere. Frankly all I need is an up button, something to tell me where I am in the hierarchy, and that's it. Mandriva's KDE (lest I be accused of painting with too wide a brush) had stuff all over the place and it was almost claustrophobic.

Ubuntu's GNOME seems fine enough. If I stick with GNOME I may as well stick with Ubuntu. So far KDE was a disappointment, though I can certainly understand why it's popular.

[tact]

I skipped a couple of pages so maybe someone has already suggested...
google for opensolaris or nexenta

these are gnome running on open source solaris. might give you something to do for a while. :)

[Frak]

Well, since you're an Ubuntu user I'm not surprised you didn't like KDE.
But there is also a GNOME LiveCD too, you know ;)

ftp://distrib-coffee.ipsl.jussieu.fr/pub/linux/MandrivaLinux/official/iso/2008.0/mandriva-linux-2008-one-GNOME-cdrom-i586.iso

Let me know if you try it :D
As I believe, the Gnome LiveCD is based on Ubuntu.

[Anonii]

Have you tried Debian, the father of Ubuntu?

[SomeGuyDude]

Have you tried Debian, the father of Ubuntu?

Not yet.

I'm assuming that since Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian, that means it works in a nearly identical way? Meaning, same commands and the like? Trying to switch over to Mandriva was ridiculous because I quickly realized that aside from not knowing my way around KDE I hadn't the faintest clue how to install anything.

[ffi]

Not yet.

I'm assuming that since Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian, that means it works in a nearly identical way? Meaning, same commands and the like? Trying to switch over to Mandriva was ridiculous because I quickly realized that aside from not knowing my way around KDE I hadn't the faintest clue how to install anything.
Mandriva has a gnome live cd too and regarding installing/uninstalling it couldn't be much simpler, did you look in the mandriva control center->software management (there is a quick launch in the taskbar and it starts with the software management open by default)? Or from the command-line urpmi <package> to install and urpme <package> to uninstall......

http://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/Mandrakelinux/official/iso/2008.0/mandriva-linux-2008-one-GNOME-cdrom-i586.iso

or if you still have mandriva installed install task-gnome or task-gnome-minimal

ie. from a terminal as root:

urpmi task-gnome

switching display managers is easy too using the cotrol center...

[mips]

Not yet.

I'm assuming that since Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian, that means it works in a nearly identical way? Meaning, same commands and the like?

Identical.

[SomeGuyDude]

Identical.

Now I'm interested. Although what's irking me is that it's not that a given alternative is "less enjoyable", it's that so far Ubuntu's the only one that's not had some serious problems. Mandriva exploded every time I tried to log out, Sabayon was just plain unresponsive, Dream didn't work with my wireless.

Mint, admittedly, was fine, but I had no reason to use it over Ubuntu since it's so similar.

I got my eyes on Debian and Arch now, though. I'll aim for the Debian DVD next.

[mips]

Now I'm interested. Although what's irking me is that it's not that a given alternative is "less enjoyable", it's that so far Ubuntu's the only one that's not had some serious problems.

Debian is going to be harder to setup than Ubuntu, you will be familiar with it though.

[mivo]

Arch uses its own packaging system, so it's different from all other root distros. It's also the only distro that had zero issues with my brand-new desktop's hardware (not that it wasn't fixable in the other distros, but it surprised me nonetheless because I had expected more problems, not less).

Debian isn't identical to Ubuntu in all ways, and configuration files aren't always the same or in the same place, but the packaging system is the same (packages themselves differ, though, much to the annoynance of Debian devs).

[Frak]

Now I'm interested. Although what's irking me is that it's not that a given alternative is "less enjoyable", it's that so far Ubuntu's the only one that's not had some serious problems. Mandriva exploded every time I tried to log out, Sabayon was just plain unresponsive, Dream didn't work with my wireless.

Mint, admittedly, was fine, but I had no reason to use it over Ubuntu since it's so similar.

I got my eyes on Debian and Arch now, though. I'll aim for the Debian DVD next.
Use the netinst to save a DVD and time, also, be aware that it will take longer to setup (and you will quickly look to automatix). Also, you'll most likely want to use the testing or unstable repos because the default ones are horribly out of date.

Arch is fun, easy to use, but still has a "Do it yourself" mentality.

[mindtrick]

Not entirely true! You could get precompiled versions of Open Office, KDE, Skype etc as binary packages.

Do you know where can I find a list of binary packages ready for Gentoo? A search on Google turned nothing.

[Frak]

Do you know where can I find a list of binary packages ready for Gentoo? A search on Google turned nothing.
Try installing something with the -bin suffix, such as
emerge firefox-bin
This doesn't work on all apps, but on the most used ones. Such as firefox, thunderbird, and OO.o

[SomeGuyDude]

Use the netinst to save a DVD and time, also, be aware that it will take longer to setup (and you will quickly look to automatix). Also, you'll most likely want to use the testing or unstable repos because the default ones are horribly out of date.

Arch is fun, easy to use, but still has a "Do it yourself" mentality.

I can understand the testing repos, but uh... wouldn't the "unstable" ones be kind of a bad idea?

Yeah, read a few reviews on Arch. I likes me the GUIs and while I understand the geek pride of doing things pure text and such, I'm not one to get rid of convenience to save a few milliseconds.

[Anonii]

Try installing something with the -bin suffix, such as
emerge firefox-bin
This doesn't work on all apps, but on the most used ones. Such as firefox, thunderbird, and OO.o


http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2&chap=3#doc_chap4

[mivo]

Yeah, read a few reviews on Arch. I likes me the GUIs and while I understand the geek pride of doing things pure text and such, I'm not one to get rid of convenience to save a few milliseconds.

I had Gnome running in Arch quickly. Take a look at the Beginner's Guide I linked to in my post above -- it has a desktop environment section. Getting a DE installed is as simple as typing pacman -S gnome gnome-extra (or any other DE instead of Gnome) after you installed X (which in my case was as easy as typing pacman -S xorg and then X -configure). I also installed Compiz Fusion in the same way, and then AWN (this required the use of the AUR).

Arch does require more reading up on things and the terminal is used more often, but it's not totally different or only for hardcore Linux experts. I didn't have to configure any hardware pieces, they were all detected automatically. I've been using Linux only for a little over two months, and I'm not an overly technical person. Arch feels right to me -- it's gently challenging, but not overwhelmingly so. :) I'm glad I tried it.

[SomeGuyDude]

I had Gnome running in Arch quickly. Take a look at the Beginner's Guide I linked to in my post above -- it has a desktop environment section. Getting a DE installed is as simple as typing pacman -S gnome gnome-extra (or any other DE instead of Gnome) after you installed X (which in my case was as easy as typing pacman -S xorg and then X -configure). I also installed Compiz Fusion in the same way, and then AWN (this required the use of the AUR).

Arch does require more reading up on things and the terminal is used more often, but it's not totally different or only for hardcore Linux experts. I didn't have to configure any hardware pieces, they were all detected automatically. I've been using Linux only for a little over two months, and I'm not an overly technical person. Arch feels right to me -- it's gently challenging, but not overwhelmingly so. :) I'm glad I tried it.

Reading up, now. So far I think I just lucked out and picked the one that works best on my machine, but then I've really only tried five out of the new crop (Gutsy/Mandriva/Sabayon/Mint/Dream). I'll give Arch a whack, Debian I'm keeping on the backburner until I can read and understand why people switch to it.

I'm at about your experience level, so that's pretty encouraging. Hopefully it'll work out, yah? We'll see after I putz around later this afternoon.

[mivo]

I did another Arch installation today, this time with KDE (the whole vanilla 320 MB KDE package, not the fairly attractive, Arch-specific KDEMod), and it worked just fine, too. Actually runs faster for me than Kubuntu did. I've been mostly using Gnome lately, but there are some aspects of it that have been bugging me a little, so I'm fiddling some with KDE (USB disks are a wonderful thing, so easy to back up data).

Anyway, if you follow the Beginner's Guide, you should have a working basic setup after a couple of hours, depending on your download speed. Since you've seen plain Gnome and KDE already, maybe do look at the KDEMod, since it's an Arch thing and other distros don't have it. (Then again, before I installed the full KDE package, I never realized just how much stuff comes with it.)

[SomeGuyDude]

I did another Arch installation today, this time with KDE (the whole vanilla 320 MB KDE package, not the fairly attractive, Arch-specific KDEMod), and it worked just fine, too. Actually runs faster for me than Kubuntu did. I've been mostly using Gnome lately, but there are some aspects of it that have been bugging me a little, so I'm fiddling some with KDE (USB disks are a wonderful thing, so easy to back up data).

Anyway, if you follow the Beginner's Guide, you should have a working basic setup after a couple of hours, depending on your download speed. Since you've seen plain Gnome and KDE already, maybe do look at the KDEMod, since it's an Arch thing and other distros don't have it. (Then again, before I installed the full KDE package, I never realized just how much stuff comes with it.)

It does seem a little more intense than I anticipated. I'm not sure how ready I am for this kinda thing.

[mivo]

Anything causing difficulties in particular? I thought the Beginner's Guide covered the possible trouble spots fairly well (like editing the rc.conf and the hosts file).

[SomeGuyDude]

Anything causing difficulties in particular? I thought the Beginner's Guide covered the possible trouble spots fairly well (like editing the rc.conf and the hosts file).

Just the overall complication of it. I'm watching a video right now that shows someone installing, and the fact that I'd have to go into all of these files for configuration. I may keep this Wiki bookmarked and read through it periodically, but I can't imagine trying to get through this without having someone nearby to explain it to me.

EDIT: Frankly, after all of this, I've decided to stop for a while. I'm sure that if I put the work into it, I'd find some distro out there that's 100% perfect for little old me, but I'll settle with 95%. Ubuntu works with all my hardware, I've got my desktop looking dang sexy, I've got all the software I want, and it's pretty damn snappy (I think the switch from Vista to Ubuntu made me think that it can ALWAYS get faster).

Maybe I should stick with this for a while longer before playing "grass is always greener".