Why Ubuntu, and not some other distribution of Linux?

[browndog]

What is it that draws you to, makes you loyal to, and makes you want to use Ubuntu Linux, instead of another distribution?

[|eafhound]

Because i love the isle of man ;)

crazy with no speed limits

[Namtabmai]

I've been using Linux for years. Started out with Red Hat, and that was back in the day where RPMs really would make you tear your hair out. Tried out Linux from scratch (yep RPMs where bad enough to make me try that ;) ), moved on to Gentoo before finally switching to Ubuntu.

Really for me it comes down to the package management combined with how actively those packages are maintained and updated. I realised RPM distros have come along way and things like Yum etc have improved the situation but I still can't shrug that off. Gentoo's portage was cool but I got tired of having to compile stuff. Which brings me to debs, and therefore Ubuntu for it's more update packages than straight Debian.

I probably should give Arch and pacman a go at some point, I've heard loads of people raving about it, but as I've got no problem with Ubuntu I don't see any reason to change at the moment.

[Barrucadu]

I used Ubuntu because it was what my friend kept nagging me to use :p
I then got bored, went distro hopping, and ended up on Arch, which I've been using exclusively for about a year (after 3 months of exclusive Ubuntu usage, my only prior Linux experience), and don't think I'll be changing from. I hang around on the Ubuntu forums because I like it here.

[Therion]

.
In a word: Synaptic.
.

[Thelasko]

It's simple to use/configure/install.

[Luffield]

In 2005 I wanted to try Linux using a live CD. I only knew about Knoppix back then so I downloaded it and tried to boot it but it didn't work. So I started looking for other options, found Distrowatch, saw that a distro called Ubuntu was #1 on the list there (can't even remember what the meaning of the list was...) and it had a live CD so I downloaded it and it worked on my PC. Worked surprisingly well, actually.

I never really tried other distros, both because I like Ubuntu and because I'm lazy. When my hard drive died I used Fedora 8 on the temporary drive I used until my replacement drive arrived, it worked perfectly well but I didn't find a reason to stay with it. I've been thinking about trying Mint, Debian and Arch but I think I'll wait until I have more free time.

[y6FgBn)~v]

It works for me.

[jacobw.uk]

Because it focuses on being usable and able to replace Windows as a desktop or server operating system rather than focusing on criteria that matter only to computer geeks, like the imaginary speed enhancements of Gentoo or the supposed simplicity of Arch. Plus, its the best way to use Debian on the desktop :)

[powell]

First linux I've tried, only 23 days ago (more of a new years resolution away from Windows) and it's very user-friendly

[binbash]

Most of things work out of box.That is it.(and of course user friendly).It is not about ubuntu is faster or better than any other distro.

[Sealbhach]

I read that the forums were friendly. Let's hope they stay that way.;)

.

[sub2007]

Arch is not supposedly simple, it is simple. Ubuntu and Arch are both simple and handily the Oxford dictionary gives two definitions: firstly "easily understood or done" and secondly "plain and uncomplicated in form, nature or design". Ubuntu is the first, Arch is the second.

Ubuntu is my second favourite distro, I used it because until I found Arch it was the best distro to meet my needs. Arch fits my needs much better and so I use that. There are lots of great distros and the answer to your question is applicable to any distro: "because I like it the best out of the distros that I've tried".

[xpod]

After my first 4 months on a computer i`d never really heard of Linux let alone Ubuntu so because the Ubuntu site was the first i landed on when stumbling for other "operating systems" thats what i went with,indeed stuck with.

[ThePinkPoo]

Was the first one that I got really adjusted to. I started my Linux Career on Fedora Core 4. Started Ubuntu at 5.10 and what changes has come along since then. Really amazing. I am starting to fool around with Arch but for now Ubuntu is here to stay.

[shadowdude1794]

It works.

[shecky]

I've been using Linux for years. Started out with Red Hat, and that was back in the day where RPMs really would make you tear your hair out. Tried out Linux from scratch (yep RPMs where bad enough to make me try that ;) ), moved on to Gentoo before finally switching to Ubuntu.

Really for me it comes down to the package management combined with how actively those packages are maintained and updated. I realised RPM distros have come along way and things like Yum etc have improved the situation but I still can't shrug that off. Gentoo's portage was cool but I got tired of having to compile stuff. Which brings me to debs, and therefore Ubuntu for it's more update packages than straight Debian.

I probably should give Arch and pacman a go at some point, I've heard loads of people raving about it, but as I've got no problem with Ubuntu I don't see any reason to change at the moment.

I second this reason. I used to distro-hop (SuSE, Gentoo, Slackware, Mandrake, Fedora), but after going through long compiles, dependency hell, and the pain in the butt that RPMs tended to be a few years back, I fell in love with Debian's APT. While I still use Debian on an ancient laptop, I do a lot of graphics work on my desktop. Having Ubuntu's up-to-date versions of everything tends to be really useful.

[Rokurosv]

I liked the fact that there is a lot of documentation available and lots of packages. I'm not an Ubuntu user anymore but I do recommend it when people ask me what distro should they use, if they're kinda unexperienced.

[marcgh]

User for just 28 days now.
3 full re-installs in the first 24 hours - I nearly gave up.
Glad I din't. This year I fired XP 2 times up and only to sYncronise (backup) my Nokia 6300 contacts list.
Other great feeling about Ubuntu : you never feel alone thanks to the forums.

[jespdj]

Because...

I am a long-time Linux user. I first played with Linux in 1994, on my Intel 486. That was Slackware Linux (Ubuntu or Debian didn't exist yet at that time). I haven't been Linux all the time since 1994. In 2006 I wanted to start with Linux again so I looked around what the number one Linux distros were at that time. That's how I found Ubuntu.

I like Ubuntu because it is focused on making Linux easy and user-friendly, and because there is an enormous number of software packages in the Ubuntu repository. Also, the Ubuntu community is very large and active, as you can see on the forums here.

[Sunflower1970]

I wanted something that was user-friendly since I had not used any Linux distro before Dec 2006. Typed in 'user-friendly linux' into Google and Ubuntu popped up first. Once I got comfortable with it, I've branched out using PCLinuxOS, TinyME, AntiX, Zenwalk, Fedora, Puppy, DSL, Debian and Arch (Debian & Arch are my two faves, now, though)

[sisco311]

Arch is not supposedly simple, it is simple. Ubuntu and Arch are both simple and handily the Oxford dictionary gives two definitions: firstly "easily understood or done" and secondly "plain and uncomplicated in form, nature or design". Ubuntu is the first, Arch is the second.

Ubuntu is my second favourite distro, I used it because until I found Arch it was the best distro to meet my needs. Arch fits my needs much better and so I use that. There are lots of great distros and the answer to your question is applicable to any distro: "because I like it the best out of the distros that I've tried".
+1 and
Q.E.F. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.#Q.E.F.)

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well for me I am very loyal to debian based OS's, so ubuntu being debian based makes it an easy choice.

[Sand & Mercury]

I like Ubuntu because it works out of the box better than any other distro that I've tried. Installing Arch was a fantastic learning experience but I'd still prefer to stick to Ubuntu because it is always going to be simpler to use (as opposed to simpler in design), since that is its focus. Also, with a minimal ISO I've made it quite light. A lot of people complain about its apparent bloat but it can be made to run extremely lean (not to the same extent as Arch or Slackware, but certainly good enough for my needs)

[kk0sse54]

.
In a word: Synaptic.
.

That's not exactly a reason to use Ubuntu since Synaptic isn't an Ubuntu specific application. And referencing to the original question, no I don't use Ubuntu, I use Gentoo.

[Coinneach]

I wanted to go to the most popular since that distro would have the most support for learning linux.

[jajodo]

I tried several linux distributions shortly after I made The Switch to free software and was impressed by the quality of all of them. What makes Ubuntu stand out in my opinion is:

1. The forums. You can find the solution to almost any Ubuntu problem with a simple search. I did not find such extensive help with other distros. I actually kept returning to the Ubuntu forums after I had strayed.
2. Critical mass. Ubuntu has become so popular that it is now being catered to by software providers. More often than not Ubuntu is one of the first distros provided with packages and software source links.

[ZarathustraDK]

Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'Humanity to others', or 'I am what I am because of who we all are'. The Ubuntu distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world.

Because of this.

[Therion]

That's not exactly a reason to use Ubuntu since Synaptic isn't an Ubuntu specific application.


Synaptic is one of the more primary, but not sole nor singular reason, that I use Ubuntu; having found other package management systems lacking in comparison thereto.

THIS, combined with certain heretofore and hereafter specifically [i]unnamed, characteristics currently considered superfluous, yet contributory.
.

[cariboo]

I started using Redhat in 1998, then progressed to Mandrake (now Mandriva) then I was part of the beta testing team For Xandros (see attached screenshot), then to PCLinuxOS and finally Ubuntu.

Through all the different distros, I have always used Debian on my server, until I started using Ubuntu.

Jim

[mamamia88]

because i find it easy to use and don't want to go looking for something more complex right now

[jimi_hendrix]

ubuntu supports my fglrx the best...im testing out debian tomorrow though so we will see...
i would use arch but since i dont know how to optimize fglrx in xorg.conf...

[Twitch6000]

I dont use ubuntu I use Linux Mint :).

I am also downloading the latest beta of PClinuxOS2009(I can't wait anymore...)

[gjoellee]

I used Ubuntu, but not anymore. I moved to Ubuntu from Windows. Learned about Linux and became a more advanced user using Ubuntu. Ubuntu is also pretty easy to use...but at what cost?.... Now I am on Arch

[calvinps]

Because i love the isle of man ;)

crazy with no speed limits

Are there honestly no speed limits on the Isle of Man?

I thought that was only on the Autobahnen. :confused: :lolflag:

[calvinps]

because i find it easy to use and don't want to go looking for something more complex right now

AND it's easy to get imho ;)

[domokunrox]

The GUI is super easy from a fresh install and it only gets better when you update (which is also easy).

[zecatfish]

I started using Linux back yonder with kernel 1.2.13, I'd tried all the distros at one time or another then. I settled into Redhat, slackware was the more popular distro then. I like the RPM package management.
Debain was alive and well then too, but deslect was the spawn of satan IMHO and was a pain to use. I used RH upto RH 7 then I got out of Linux and computers for awhile. I'd used Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, NetBSD, NextStep on some strange hardware.
DEC3000's ran NetBSD cause I lacked a copy of AIX for it. The TurboChannel achitecture wasn't supported by Linux.
Alphas, PA-Risc, and PowerPC all as a hobbiest, hoping one day to make a living with it. Well that never worked out. I migrated away from the computers. Fast forward a few years later, I see Ubuntu one day and figured what the hey, downloaded the ISO and installed it on a spare hd in a laptop and it all worked and read a few docs on apt-get etc.
Its been several months now with Ubunbtu and it works.

thats the reason I started using Linux in the first place, if anyone ever used Windows 3.11 knows why Linux was GREAT, no more random crashes, and just works with minor tweaking once its setup.

So in a word now days I use Ubuntu mostly cause of the DEB package manager.

[Cosimix]

Ubuntu is probably the best distribution for newbies. Casper (Ubuntu installer) is one of the best out there as it includes the LiveCD which not all the distros have one.
After trying other major distributions (i.e. Fedora CentOS), Id say they are pretty much the same in terms of applications (Gnome). What makes the difference is the community in terms of support and human valours (sharing), everything is thoroughly documented, up-to-date, and built upon the inheritance of debian resulting in a great stability and a huge deb-packages repository.

Ubuntu loves Africa, muslims, catholics, jewish, gay, white, black, and whoever else in this world. Ubuntu means the human network (also cisco says that but they probably mean the $$ network). Ubuntu means love and help whoever needs your help. I expect to find people who think like that when I join the community.

...however, as long as you don't use crappy buggy MS feel free to decide which distribution best meets your taste.

[Dylnuge]

Ubuntu isn't the only distro I use, but it's still my favorite. It runs fast, it has a ton of nice features, and frankly, it just works. Gentoo never recognized my wireless card or printers (even after three weeks of trying, it took me forever just to get a X-windows server running, which also wasn't working for the longest time), Red Hat was slower (still faster then Windows), etc.

[kk0sse54]

Synaptic is one of the more primary, but not sole nor singular reason, that I use Ubuntu; having found other package management systems lacking in comparison thereto.

THIS, combined with certain heretofore and hereafter specifically [i]unnamed, characteristics currently considered superfluous, yet contributory.


What I was attempting to say was that Synaptic isn't Ubuntu specific thus it's found on most Debian based systems using apt and even be installed on distros such as Fedora (don't really see the reason why but that's another story....;)). So the use of synaptic isn't really much of a reason on why to use Ubuntu over say Debian and it's plethora of derivatives. Semantics really that just aren't worth arguing over, forgive me if you interpretted me sounding hostile in the first post.

[richg]

Ubuntu works and has excellent support/updates. That is why I left Linspire/Freespire when 8.04 came out.

Rich

[cardinals_fan]

I don't ;)

I'm currently in the process of moving to BSD full-time...

[mkendall]

I dig the color scheme.

[rliegh]

What is it that draws you to, makes you loyal to, and makes you want to use Ubuntu Linux, instead of another distribution?

I'm not exactly loyal -in fact I bounce frantically from Solaris, to BSD, to Vista (on my laptop) to Linux (usually Ubuntu, SUSE and Slackware -in that order).

As far as Linux goes -I prefer Ubuntu because it's the easiest to install foreign device drivers for. Plus a lot of the applications I use under Linux (kdevelop, anjuta, alien arena and WINE) seem to be better configured/work better in Ubuntu than the other Linuxes.

[lord-zk]

its easy and strong system :D

[dnRoyston]

Synaptic, apt, and man. I built my flavor of Ubuntu from the 9mb minimal CD, and compiled almost EVERYTHING from scratch to get it exactly how I want it.

[RiceMonster]

Ubuntu was a good way for me to learn "the linus way of doing things". Now I've jumped on the Arch bandwagon.

[malspa]

Shipit.

[bruce89]

I'm too set in my ways.

[Ancalagon82]

B/c thats what my computer came with.

[ryaxnb]

I went to Ubuntu cause I wanted an easy, interesting new distro that had more stuff in repos than Mandriva. I stayed with Ubuntu rather than switch to Arch or Slackware because I believe in a distro that tries to make it easy for the user, rather than "simplicity", which I view as making it easy for the developer. I do however find that AIO configuration tools are a blessing, and like one-click installs. I've installed SuSE and Fedora to try out and am considering a migration to SuSE.

[cardinals_fan]

I stayed with Ubuntu rather than switch to Arch or Slackware because I believe in a distro that tries to make it easy for the user, rather than "simplicity", which I view as making it easy for the developer.
This obviously depends on who the user is and what they want. I find simple systems easier to manage and control.

[Sorivenul]

I mostly use FreeBSD for sever/sysadmin work. I still have an Ubuntu machine, but it is almost exclusively for desktop work and helping out on these Forums. I love the community here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=956847).

[NewJack]

My reasons:

- It was my first
- It always works for me
- Great Community

[S0m3th1ngw13rd]

My reasons:

- It was my first
- It always works for me
- Great Community


Same story here, had it for about a week now, dumped windows after running Live CD for around 3 hours, and not looking back.

[linux_nc]

nice GUI, easy to use, for me atleast

[yuku-aki]

Personally: 1. familiarity (I've been using it ever since Mandrake and Connectiva merged, for some reason I didn't like Mandriva, and I cannot remember why), 2. user-friendliness involving software installation (even Synaptic is pretty much a no-brainer), and 3. a selection of the various sub-flavors, like Kubuntu and Xubuntu.

Plus I LOVE gnome now. I wasn't a big fan when I first made the switch, but now I customize it like crazy and it does what I want.

[ranch hand]

I am new to linux and am just starting to try other flavors. So far, Suse won't load (it hangs) Fedora won't install easily and the only way to get out of it is to unplug my computer, PClinuxOS will not fit the 1400x900 screen, Mandriva works but is somehow messing with grub (I will fix this).

Basically Ubuntu works on this box very well. The community is just great. The more I experiment, the more I like Ubuntu. I believe that I am here to stay.

[deepclutch]

I want latest Gnome and Ubuntu got it!

[jrusso2]

Ubuntu is really made to be a desktop and they keep trying to make a better and easier to use one. They don't always suceed but they do the best they can.

Read what Mark Shuttleworth said about Ubuntu and Linux.

http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=3413801

Thats the reason I like Ubuntu he seems to be in agreement with me.

Shuttleworth: I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I think we deliver a user experience for people that have a reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason, Linux is the right answer.

But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price, who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And that's something we have to change, that's something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.

[ranch hand]

I have a number of LiveCDs that I am trying and find that all are touchier than Ubuntu to install and many just won't work.

To be fair I am using an external CDrom. The one that came with this box has MS aproved firmware (piracy protection) that mess' with some things. I have very legal music CDs that it will not play.

Frugalware said it had a problem with the external when it tried to boot. Never got that far on the internal.

Several won't connect to dial up. I thought I had a hard time with Hardy. I guess not. Right now I am having trouble getting kppp to work under Sidux.
Worked great under Mandriva.

Ubuntu is reliable and seems less buggy.

The support is better too. The repos work, which is nice too.

[N4zgu1]

There are a lot of guides for ubuntu and you can easily find help in the forums too.

I actually dont use ubuntu but I use LinuxMint that its based on ubuntu, its the same but it has all the codecs installed ( and I think that the name "ubuntu" sucks)

[kk0sse54]

( and I think that the name "ubuntu" sucks)

How come?

[MikeTheC]

Ubuntu is elegant and stable, thanks to it's Debian heritage. Period.

[cariboo]

I started with Red Hat, moved on to Mandrake, used Debian for a while, then Xandros. After that I used PCLinuxOS and now Ubuntu. I'll always use a distribution that suits me best. I'm not stuck on any particular distribution. When Ubuntu starts to go in a direction I don't like, I 'll use something else.

The only thing I will stick with is a distribution based on Debian.

Jim

[Naiki Muliaina]

Ive tried stacks of distros, but i always seem to end up back at Ubuntu/Xubuntu. Everything just works and Ubuntu and its derivative's have good repos and of course Synaptic.

I guess ultimately Ubuntu is like a pair of comfy slippers. No matter what they look like they are always warm and comfortable to wear. ^^

[Fenris_rising]

Ubuntu was the first Linux OS that worked out of the box for me. This meant I could learn how to do things at my own pace and thus far it's been a blast. I have also tried a few other variant's, Fedora, Crunchbang, Fluxflux, Fluxbuntu, even debian but the associated forum quashed my attempts there. This Forum is also part of the reason I have kept Ubuntu as my primary OS, answers and resources on tap and a really friendly crowd. In many ways I can see Ubuntu as being a good introduction to those who may just be passing through to any of the other Linux Distro's. It's the only reason I have 2 alternate live USB installations to play with as well :D

regards

Fenris

[gn2]

Best hardware support, best forum support, best package management, best default theme, best name, best icon.

[billgoldberg]

Ubuntu is a great distro, but I still switched to Arch, which is even better.

[zzzuppermen]

Mostly because apt, debian base and the forum. I ran both desktop and server versions.

[gn2]

Ubuntu is a great distro, but I still switched to Arch, which is even better.

Can you use Synaptic on Arch?

[handy]

Can you use Synaptic on Arch?

No, Arch uses a different way to handle packages:

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

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

There are some other ways that optimise the above two & there is a GUI or two out there as well. I can't mention how well they work, as I have no need for the GUI package manager interface because pacman & yaourt are so simple & efficient to use. The optimisation that I may get around to trying out, actually speeds up the already fast package download speed.


Ah, I guess you have guessed that I'm not using Ubuntu these days, though I am very grateful to Ubuntu & the magnificent Ubuntu community, for initiating me into the Linux distro' scene, where I've hopped about for some time, found Arch, still hopped a bit on another machine, but have slowed down on the hopping over the last months.

I'm using IPCop (http://www.ipcop.org/) & FreeNAS (http://www.freenas.org/) standalone headless boxes, which are Linux & FreeBSD based specialised distro's, which have shown themselves to be highly polished systems, from my experience.

[ambidextrousone]

as bad as this sounds, i originally got into ubuntu by just looking at screenshots of different user friendly distro's, it was a hard decision between this and opensuse - gnome won !

obviously, theres greater reasons now its all up and running, im comfortable on my ubuntu, and this community is banana's!

i am currently working on putting together a nice little arch linux, but its taking me time, its ubuntu itself that has influenced me to go through the motions of understanding more complex linux installs, plus i wear my trainee nerd badge with pride :)

[kk0sse54]

Best hardware support, best forum support, best package management, best default theme, best name, best icon.

Most of those are just subjective opinions

[zakany]

I asked one of my younger EEs which Linux distro would be best for someone disinclined to "learn Linux." I had no desire to muck around with a CLI, so he suggested Ubuntu.

That said, terminal was on the panel within ten minutes of booting. :)

I never said I couldn't use a CLI, I just didn't want to.

[Foster Grant]

What is it that draws you to, makes you loyal to, and makes you want to use Ubuntu Linux, instead of another distribution?


Everything works straight out of the box with no significant struggles. Instead of wasting time worrying about figuring out how to get the OS working, I can simply get to whatever it is I need to actually do.

[gn2]

Most of those are just subjective opinions

Completely agree, but all of them are why I use Ubuntu in preference to any other distro.

[gn2]

~ there is a GUI or two out there as well. ~

You wouldn't know what these GUI package managers for Arch are called?

[Greg]

You wouldn't know what these GUI package managers for Arch are called?

gtkpacman for gtk, Shaman for Qt

[handy]

gtkpacman for gtk, Shaman for Qt

Thanks Greg. :-)

[billgoldberg]

Can you use Synaptic on Arch?

No.

As Handy mentioned Arch uses pacman and yaourt.

Yaourt is simple to use.

If you need to search for the name of a package to install you do

yaourt -Ss nameofpackage

And you'll get a list of packages.

Then

yaourt -Sy package

to install it (or just -S, as you will).

A system update is done with

yaourt -Syu

Removing a package is done with

yaourt -R (or Rs if you want to delete dependencies).

Pretty easy to use and very fast.

A gui just slows you down.

[novafluxx]

Arch is certainly something I'm going to try in the next few months. It seems to be exactly what I want - cutting edge.

I appreciate Ubuntu for working and providing everything I need, and making it easy enough to get what more I want, but, I wish the repos were updated more frequently.

I was looking into Gentoo, but after reading about Arch, arch seems much more my style.

I just need to learn more about Linux before I try that, because I NEED my wireless to work (I run linux on a Dell laptop [Inspiron 1318])

[handy]

For anyone interested, here is a link to a current thread related to GUI package managers for Arch:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=689855

[Messyhair42]

i was drawn to ubuntu by the large community using it. i've heard things from multiple sources of its' merits. after i started using ubuntu i ended up trying OpenSuse on my laptop.

[Faolan84]

In my opinion Ubuntu is the best and that's why I use it. It's as simple as that. Before Ubuntu I used SuSE 7.1 up until Kubuntu 5.10 came out then I switched. I've also tried Fedora (didn't like too much) and for a period of last year I did try Arch which was good -- almost as good as Ubuntu -- but wasn't exactly my bag. As of the launch of KDE 4.0 and the death of KDE 3.5.x I

Personally, I think the best two distros are Arch and Ubuntu. The reason I prefer Ubuntu is because 90% of the time things just work automatically, and the rest of the times I have the option of manual configuration. Secondly, the tools provided are top notch. The only thing I don't like about Ubuntu is the default theme which I can change anytime.

Arch on the other hand needs more work and doesn't have as many automated tools available. But you can configure it how you want exactly. It can just be too much work getting things up and running in my opinion.

[T2manner]

Mainly because of the community.
That's about it.
And the package system.

[gn2]

For anyone interested, here is a link to a current thread related to GUI package managers for Arch:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=689855

Thanks Handy.




Yaourt is simple to use.

Pretty easy to use and very fast.

A gui just slows you down.

I disagree with all of the above.
For me the terminal is simply a useful rescue tool when all else fails.
Commands have to be memorised, there's too much stuff stored in my brain already without wasting space filling it with terminal commands.
I can use a GUI faster and easier than I can type (or search for and paste in) terminal commands.
Each to their own though.

A usable GUI package manager might make me re-consider using Arch, looks like I may have some research to do.

[sub2007]

How would you set up Arch if you don't want to use a CLI package manager? Considering that with Arch you have to build up the entire system up from a terminal and in the process you actually have to use pacman in terminal to install things like Xorg before you can do anything. After doing that, most Arch users see little point in installing a GUI for something that they already know how to use in terminal and which is undoubtedly faster when compared to something similar such as Synaptic.

That fact of getting a GUI for pacman is a pretty minor consideration in the grand scheme of things.

[handy]

I disagree with all of the above.
For me the terminal is simply a useful rescue tool when all else fails.
Commands have to be memorised, there's too much stuff stored in my brain already without wasting space filling it with terminal commands.
I can use a GUI faster and easier than I can type (or search for and paste in) terminal commands.
Each to their own though.

A usable GUI package manager might make me re-consider using Arch, looks like I may have some research to do.

The new Arch user has to do some initial learning, which continues through setting it up how they want it; after which there are a few essentials to be learned to deal with package management & certain issues that may arise. Beyond that, I consider Arch to be the laziest system (apart from OSX, which is also the most boring system imho :-)) I have ever used.

As far as the command line is concerned, you can use the .bashrc to make aliases that mean something to you, for all of the common commands that you will use. So for instance in the terminal I just type "h" & hit enter & htop pops up working, you can do all of this for package management too, & most Arch users eventually wake up to this, if they weren't already using .bashrc in previous distro's.

Here is a link to another thread where there will be some expansion on what can be done with pacman at the command prompt, this already includes various .bashrc aliases, though in reality aliases are only limited by our imagination:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1063533

[gn2]

How would you set up Arch if you don't want to use a CLI package manager? Considering that with Arch you have to build up the entire system up from a terminal and in the process you actually have to use pacman in terminal to install things like Xorg before you can do anything. After doing that, most Arch users see little point in installing a GUI for something that they already know how to use in terminal and which is undoubtedly faster than compared to something similar such as Synaptic.

That fact of getting a GUI for pacman is a pretty minor consideration in the grand scheme of things.

I would be happy to use the CLI for initial instalation and configuration, but once that is done a GUI package manager would mean no requirement for the CLI in normal use.
This is where Arch fell down for me in the past, I didn't find GUI tools for day to day tasks.
An afternoon of CLI use for a good, fast, stable, GUI enabled, rolling release Linux system is a small price to pay.

What I'm looking for is a good replacement for W2kProSP4 which I use on a dedicated music jukebox PC that is an 800mhz P3 with 256mb RAM and a USB soundcard.

Arch is a contender but only if there's a usable GUI package manager.
Also in the running is Debian Lenny.

[handy]

How would you set up Arch if you don't want to use a CLI package manager? Considering that with Arch you have to build up the entire system up from a terminal and in the process you actually have to use pacman in terminal to install things like Xorg before you can do anything. After doing that, most Arch users see little point in installing a GUI for something that they already know how to use in terminal and which is undoubtedly faster when compared to something similar such as Synaptic.

That fact of getting a GUI for pacman is a pretty minor consideration in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think that gn2 was saying that he doesn't see the value in using the CLI, he just prefers to not use the CLI unless it is required. So, my reading (which I'm sure gn2 will validate or otherwise before too long :-)) of gn2's position, is that he would be willing to go through the Arch installation procedure, after which he would be installing whatever GUI applications he could to remove the need to use the CLI in as many situations as possible.

[Edit:] I was too slow. lol

[gn2]

The new Arch user has to do some initial learning, which continues through setting it up how they want it; after which there are a few essentials to be learned to deal with package management & certain issues that may arise. Beyond that, I consider Arch to be the laziest system (apart from OSX, which is also the most boring system imho :-)) I have ever used.

As far as the command line is concerned, you can use the .bashrc to make aliases that mean something to you, for all of the common commands that you will use. So for instance in the terminal I just type "h" & hit enter & htop pops up working, you can do all of this for package management too, & most Arch users eventually wake up to this, if they weren't already using .bashrc in previous distro's.

Here is a link to another thread where there will be some expansion on what can be done with pacman at the command prompt, this already includes various .bashrc aliases, though in reality aliases are only limited by our imagination:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1063533

I have no imagination, I just want buttons to click, I don't want to have to make the buttons or use the CLI to perform normal routine tasks.

[handy]

I have no imagination, I just want buttons to click, I don't want to have to make the buttons or use the CLI to perform normal routine tasks.

You might like OSX?

[Tomatz]

.
In a word: Synaptic.
.

+1

Apt/aptitude (Debian) package management is by far the best. I will never go back to a .rpm based distro.

[gn2]

So, my reading (which I'm sure gn2 will validate or otherwise before too long :-)) of gn2's position, is that he would be willing to go through the Arch installation procedure, after which he would be installing whatever GUI applications he could to remove the need to use the CLI in as many situations as possible.

[Edit:] I was too slow. lol

You have it 100% correct :)
Ideally I would want to run some sort of Jukebox front end with the .mp3's on my NAS device and run Firefox, all wirelessly with a Safecom SWMULZ-5400 (Zydas 1211B chipset)

[gn2]

You might like OSX?

Won't run on my old P3 Dell Optiplex SFF.

[handy]

You have it 100% correct :)
Ideally I would want to run some sort of Jukebox front end with the .mp3's on my NAS device and run Firefox, all wirelessly with a Safecom SWMULZ-5400 (Zydas 1211B chipset)

I use a FreeNAS box which I stream video's out of to my Arch box. I use VLC, but there are a pile of other options. My LAN is cabled.

If a jukebox is all you want to do with the Arch box, you may be better off using GeeXboX (http://www.geexbox.org/en/index.html). I don't know how it will go with your NAS device, I have read that it works fabulously with FreeNAS.


Won't run on my old P3 Dell Optiplex SFF.

Bummer.