Looking for another OS

[Zerp64]

I am looking for another OS. I have tried a few out (fedora, openSUSE, gentoo) but none of them are as easy as Ubuntu. What I am looking for is an OS that is about as easy as Ubuntu but as fast as Gentoo. Can someone point me in the right direction?

[UniverseA7X]

for speed and stability, I would recommend Debian. Since Ubuntu is based off of it, you shouldn't have a problem transitioning.

For super easy everything, I think Mandriva is a distro to consider. It's quite mature, and has a GUI for just about anything you need.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Debian is a good bet though is a bit rough on the setup to get media and such, plus it has an archaic installer.

[L815]

Debian, that's where I think I'm gonna end up.

She has the speed, the packages, and the following.

Plus, the name & logo kick ***!

[MONODA]

arch is probably the easiest distro to mantain and get everything working in properly.

[mips]

I do not think you are going to find anything that meats your requirements.

If you are willing to read a wiki for install try Arch.

[L815]

arch is probably the easiest distro to mantain and get everything working in properly.

While Arch is easy to maintain, I don't think the OP is up to the manual configuration you have to go through to get it running properly. He wants something as *easy* as ubuntu.
As good as the Arch wiki is, I don't think it's THAT easy, IMHO.

[mips]

As good as the Arch wiki is, I don't think it's THAT easy, IMHO.

My belief is that if you follow every step of the Beginners Guide then you will end up with a working Arch setup.

No it's not Ubuntu and it probably never will be. Then again they are bringing out a new LiveCD soon which should make it easier.

[L815]

My belief is that if you follow every step of the Beginners Guide then you will end up with a working Arch setup.

No it's not Ubuntu and it probably never will be. Then again they are bringing out a new LiveCD soon which should make it easier.

Yeah, this is true. But it depends on his view. A working configuration is not always a well configured one.

A live cd would be very nice. I am actually debating now (i know, erratic decisions ;p), between Debian or Arch for this laptop.

[mips]

Yeah, this is true. But it depends on his view. A working configuration is not always a well configured one.

A live cd would be very nice. I am actually debating now (i know, erratic decisions ;p), between Debian or Arch for this laptop.

I have never had to do anything more than the specified in the beginners guide for Arch+KDEmod. Setting up other DEs & WMs could be a different story.

Pick what works best for you. I simply just love arch & it's rolling release cycle.

[Orlsend]

Easier than Ubuntu or debian?

The why Not EyeOS? :D

[molom]

Without a doubt parsix based on debian testing and offers all the stuff ubuntu has to offer, to tell the truth, I don't see why people are using Ubuntu, Parsix is as easy to install and its a hell of a lot faster because its based on Debian.
PCBSD is another one, but its based on FreeBSD. But its said to be the most user friendly OS out there.

[issih]

Doubt this is really an achievable aim...

The point of gentoo is it is a source based distribution, i.e. you compile just about everything. Because of this, every application is optimised for your exact hardware configuration, not for some generic pc that hopefully is somewhat similar to yours. This is what makes gentoo fast...it is also what makes it rather a pig to use at times.

Using packages results in things that are easier, but slower, no easy way around it, sorry :(

[Bachstelze]

Because of this, every application is optimised for your exact hardware configuration, not for some generic pc that hopefully is somewhat similar to yours. This is what makes gentoo fast...

Nah. Every i386 compatible PC is similar enough to every other so that compile-time optimizations alone make no run-time speed increase that is noticeable to the naked eye.

Gentoo has lots of advantages over other distros, but please give me a break with the "compiling your stuff will make it run faster" rubbish. Have you even bothered to make accurate benchmarks about it?

[issih]

Nope, never benchmarked it, so you could well be right..seriously doubt you have either though :)

Its a generally held thought..might be myth might not.

As a general rule things are pretty similar its true, but the architectures of different chips ARE significantly different, and compilers DO have optimisations based on the chips that they discover. If it didn't do anything no one would bother putting the code into the compilers. Its also astonishing the improvements that can be made by asking a c or c++ compiler to use optimisation at compile time. Compiled packages ought to have taken advantage of all these features as much as possible...but I'm willing to bet quite a few haven't.

General rule, I actually agree with you, what makes one distribution fast compared to another is the choice of window manager, desktop environment, installed packages and running background apps, but if those are equal, I'd bet gentoo would have a small lead :)

[Zerp64]

Alrighty, I'll give arch and Debian both a try. The thing about Debian is that it needs a bunch of Cds, right? Or do those just have .deb packages on them and all I'll need is a single CD/DVD to install?

Anyways, I have a new 15 Gig partition after deleting Windows. I can use that to help me distro-hop. I'll come back after I figure out whether or not these two dists suit me.

[L815]

Alrighty, I'll give arch and Debian both a try. The thing about Debian is that it needs a bunch of Cds, right? Or do those just have .deb packages on them and all I'll need is a single CD/DVD to install?

Anyways, I have a new 15 Gig partition after deleting Windows. I can use that to help me distro-hop. I'll come back after I figure out whether or not these two dists suit me.

No, you only need 1 CD for Debian. The rest are just extra packages which are for those who don't have fast internet, or who just want to install everything at once :)

[cardinals_fan]

Easier than Ubuntu or debian?

The why Not EyeOS? :D
EyeOS is actually really cool. I'll write a post on it when I have time.

[Zerp64]

Okay, I've got Debian on my system right now. It's okay, sure. I was surprised to find that those gstreamer plugins that allow mp3 playback installed by default. It has it's problems (such as an annoying 'unable to turn cooling system off' that pops up every five seconds on the TTY terminal), but I can deal with it for now. And it's definitely faster than Ubuntu, if only slightly more complicated. I like this so far. If my PC ever needs to be scrubbed for some reason, I'll format my disk and install Debian instead Ubuntu.

Now, off to try Arch Linux.

[tel93]

No, you only need 1 CD for Debian. The rest are just extra packages which are for those who don't have fast internet, or who just want to install everything at once :)

When downloading a Debian cd, download testing netinst (less than 200 MB). The website sucks so I'll provide a link for you: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/testing/current/i386/iso-cd/

[Zerp64]

Okay, I've got Debian on my system right now. It's okay, sure. I was surprised to find that those gstreamer plugins that allow mp3 playback installed by default. It has it's problems (such as an annoying 'unable to turn cooling system off' that pops up every five seconds on the TTY terminal), but I can deal with it for now. And it's definitely faster than Ubuntu, if only slightly more complicated. I like this so far. If my PC ever needs to be scrubbed for some reason, I'll format my disk and install Debian instead Ubuntu.

Now, off to try Arch Linux.

On second thought, never mind. I'm kinda... transfixed... with Debian Etch right now. The thing is blazingly fast, compared to Ubuntu on this computer. I think after I fix that annoying borderless window problem with compiz fusion git repo in Debian I'll back up my music collection (the only thing that matters :)), format my discs and install Debian again.

By the way, just a little question: What is the advantage to having a separate /boot partition?

[MisfitI38]

By the way, just a little question: What is the advantage to having a separate /boot partition?
There are several reasons for using separate filesystems, instead of shoving everything into one or two filesystems:

* Security: You can mark some filesystems as 'nosuid', 'nodev', 'noexec', 'readonly', etc.
* Stability: A user, or a misbehaved program, can fill a filesystem with garbage if they have write permissions for it. Your critical programs, which of course run on a different filesystem, do not get interrupted.
* Speed: A filesystem which gets written to frequently may get somewhat fragmented.
* Integrity: If one filesystem is corrupted for some reason then your other filesystems are still OK.
* Size: Many machines have limits on the area of a disk where the boot ROM can load the kernel from. In some cases, this limit may be very small (504M for an older 486), in other cases, a much larger limit (for example, 2G, 8G, or 128G on i386 systems). As the kernel can end up anywhere within the root partition, the entire root partition should be within this area.
from the OpenBSD handbook

[init1]

When downloading a Debian cd, download testing netinst (less than 200 MB). The website sucks so I'll provide a link for you: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/testing/current/i386/iso-cd/
Eh, I prefer Etch. It's old, but it's stable. Of course, Lenny will become stable in a few months, so I hope that it's as good a release as Etch :D