Ubuntu alternative based on GNOME

[Guillaumeb]

Alright I know this may sound like a troll on the dau of 9.04 final release but see on my Vostro 1510 my GM965 chipset is not recognized.

It's a shame because I really like Ubuntu a lot. Now i was wondering if you could point me to an alternative that use GNOME.

Mandrive seems to be based on KDE 4.2. i'm not a fan of KDE though

[BarfBag]

Have you tried Linux Mint? http://www.linuxmint.com/

[Simian Man]

Mandrive seems to be based on KDE 4.2. i'm not a fan of KDE though

Mandriva has a Gnome version too. Just like Ubuntu has a KDE version :). You could also try Fedora, they generally have the freshest kernel and drivers of the non-diy distros.

[snowpine]

Debian?

[Skripka]

Just about any old Linux can run Gnome.

[Eisenwinter]

Try Arch.

[gnomeuser]

Foresight, openSUSE, Fedora.. SLED (if you want that commercial support and joy). So many to pick from.

[liamnixon]

Mandriva w/ Gnome was pretty great when I tried it, though the package manager wasn't the best. I suggest Fedora, really. It has a really good Gnome system and a great package manager (yum).

[James_Lochhead]

+1 for Fedora.

[Dragonbite]

The top 3 have the best chance at hardware recognition; Fedora, Ubuntu and openSUSE.

[hessiess]

+1 for Arch.

[Guillaumeb]

what's so special about Arch ? everyone seems to be talking about it these days (or is it just me ?)

[.Maleficus.]

what's so special about Arch ? everyone seems to be talking about it these days (or is it just me ?)
The reasons I like it:

- Rolling release means I'm always current
- Build from a base system up, with only the packages I want
- Binary package manager, but if I want I can get a PKGBUILD (build script) for anything and compile it while still having pacman know it is installed
- pacman is a great package manager and with yaourt (an addon that allows you to install programs from ABS and the AUR) it is even better
- VERY well documented

People are talking about it a lot because it's a great system ;). You'll find that a lot of people here run it.

[entr3p]

what's so special about Arch ? everyone seems to be talking about it these days (or is it just me ?)
Why don't you check all the reviews and such? But I can tell you a bit why it's so "special". Basically it's not like Ubuntu that you get everything done for you. You get a barebone system with only the necessities. So that mean a black screen where you can only run commands. Anything special about that? No. But where it really shines is how you install and update programs. To install programs you use Pacman which is IMO the best package manager and to update it's EXTREMELY simple. I forgot the commands as I use FreeBSD but their REALLY simple. Anyways Arch gives you the power to make the computer HOWEVER you want with ONLY what you want. In the end it gives you a fast, stable system which is easy to update. Also it's a rolling release system so there's no "official" releases as they are just snapshots. So that means you always get the latest programs available which is pretty cool.

[arashiko28]

Linux mint is Ubuntu based and they use GNOME, give it a try.

[Mehall]

Why don't you check all the reviews and such? But I can tell you a bit why it's so "special". Basically it's not like Ubuntu that you get everything done for you. You get a barebone system with only the necessities. So that mean a black screen where you can only run commands. Anything special about that? No. But where it really shines is how you install and update programs. To install programs you use Pacman which is IMO the best package manager and to update it's EXTREMELY simple. I forgot the commands as I use FreeBSD but their REALLY simple. Anyways Arch gives you the power to make the computer HOWEVER you want with ONLY what you want. In the end it gives you a fast, stable system which is easy to update. Also it's a rolling release system so there's no "official" releases as they are just snapshots. So that means you always get the latest programs available which is pretty cool.

I like pacman, I really do, but how is "sudo pacman -Syu" clearer for new users than "sudo apt-get update" you tell them apt is the thing for repositories, just like pacman, then the names of the operations are plain english. Makes sense to me.

As said, I like pacman.

[ddrichardson]

I use Arch and like it because it has a lot of the Slackware mentality but with a much better package management system.

The Arch Wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page) is very good too, which is useful because you'll spend a lot of time setting it up and configuring to what you want. I found that it's the kind of system I like to tinker with for fun and when I have what I want create a disk image and use that to re-install from if needed.

It was the first Linux distribution I had running flawlessly on the Acer Aspire One too.

If you don't care for cruft then it rocks - typing
pacman -S xfce4Will install XFCE and Xorg without a selection of applications someone thinks you should have. It means I can have XFCE with WICD and never have to remove Network Manager.

[Bölvaður]

as a replacement any Debian would be very good. Fedora is a good choice also and it's gnome may be closer to what ubuntu is than like Lenny is (debian).

[mamamia88]

how bout debian? alot like ubuntu but with a few more outdated packages

[snowpine]

how bout debian? alot like ubuntu but with a few more outdated packages

Only if you are using Debian "stable" (Lenny), which is really meant for servers or enterprise-type situations where frequent updates are not desired. Most Debian desktop users like you or me use "testing" (Squeeze) or "unstable" (Sid, which actually uses newer packages than Ubuntu).

[mamamia88]

Only if you are using Debian "stable" (Lenny), which is really meant for servers or enterprise-type situations where frequent updates are not desired. Most Debian desktop users like you or me use "testing" (Squeeze) or "unstable" (Sid, which actually uses newer packages than Ubuntu).

oh only ever installed lenny had no idea. never thought it was a good idea to use a testing os as your main os

[snowpine]

oh only ever installed lenny had no idea. never thought it was a good idea to use a testing os as your main os

Ubuntu is based on Debian unstable/sid, so from a certain point of view, Ubuntu is a testing OS. ;)

Debian Lenny is very approximately the equivalent of using Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron, Squeeze is currently somewhere around 8.10, and Sid is a good preview of what 9.10 will be like. :)

[mamamia88]

Ubuntu is based on Debian unstable/sid, so from a certain point of view, Ubuntu is a testing OS. ;)

Debian Lenny is very approximately the equivalent of using Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron, Squeeze is currently somewhere around 8.10, and Sid is a good preview of what 9.10 will be like. :)
good to know so just because it says testing doesn't make it unstable like ubuntu alphas and betas can be

[snowpine]

good to know so just because it says testing doesn't make it unstable like ubuntu alphas and betas can be

"Stable" in the Linux sense of the word is often misunderstood. A release is stable when it is no longer under active development, in other words, you get security updates and bug fixes, but you never get new versions of applications/packages. Debian Lenny and all Ubuntu releases are stable in this sense of the word.

"Testing" (Debian Squeeze, Ubuntu alpha/beta) or "rolling release" (Arch, Debian Sid, Sidux) means that new versions of applications and packages are constantly being added to the repositories. This type of distro doesn't have distinct releases (8.10, 9.04, etc) because it is constantly in a state of flux.

When most people think "stable" they think "reliable, bug free, won't crash," but in reality, a stable release can be buggy (like Jaunty at this particular moment in time) and a rolling release can be quite reliable (like Arch).

OK, off my soapbox. :)

[forrestcupp]

Have you tried Linux Mint? http://www.linuxmint.com/


Linux mint is Ubuntu based and they use GNOME, give it a try.

But that's the point; it's based on Ubuntu. If Ubuntu doesn't work, it seems like Mint wouldn't either.



I'd check out the new version of Sabayon Linux. It comes with Gnome. It looks pretty sweet, if you meet the hardware requirements.

[forrestcupp]

The reasons I like it:

- Rolling release means I'm always current
- Build from a base system up, with only the packages I want
- Binary package manager, but if I want I can get a PKGBUILD (build script) for anything and compile it while still having pacman know it is installed
- pacman is a great package manager and with yaourt (an addon that allows you to install programs from ABS and the AUR) it is even better
- VERY well documented

People are talking about it a lot because it's a great system ;). You'll find that a lot of people here run it.

The pluses of Arch are awesome, but there is one minus that makes it a show stopper for me. Compared to other distros, it's hell to set up. Some people get into that, but I'm for the more modern idea of making things easy to use.

[Therion]

PCLOS-Gnome is nice. It would be my choice if for some reason Ubuntu were to crap out on me.

http://linuxgator.org/download/download.html

[ddrichardson]

The pluses of Arch are awesome, but there is one minus that makes it a show stopper for me. Compared to other distros, it's hell to set up. Some people get into that, but I'm for the more modern idea of making things easy to use.
I don't think that is a "modern" idea to make things easy to use, Arch is thoroughly documented (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide), its install is particularly step by step and you know exactly what you're getting. Its a fair point that it is less fire and forget than Ubuntu but its not difficult to set up. Certainly not Hell.

[liamnixon]

I wouldn't call Arch hell to set up, but it can be a pain. Particularly xorg, which seems to hate me when I use Arch.

[.Maleficus.]

The pluses of Arch are awesome, but there is one minus that makes it a show stopper for me. Compared to other distros, it's hell to set up. Some people get into that, but I'm for the more modern idea of making things easy to use.
After doing one or two installs, it isn't bad at all. I can get a working Arch install done in 20 minutes + download time, since the config has been drilled into my brain. Xorg can be a pain but I back up my xorg.conf anyways. I think some of that comes with using the newer packages too.

[richg]

I had a couple issues with Ubuntu 8.04 and went to Mint 6. Issues solved.

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/6625/1/

Rich

[CJ Master]

For the people that's telling him to use Arch, have you even examined his post? It strongly suggests that he is new to the Linux world. Arch does not fit everyone; it's a needlessly complicated installer and system, breakage that needs high linux knowledge to fix, ect, ect.

The OP's origional question: I would probably go with Linux Mint.

[mamamia88]

do you think it might be simpler to stick with intrepid or even hardy than switch distros alltogether?

[Guillaumeb]

Thanks for all your answers . I really appreciate it I guess my USB stick is gonna hold several distributions those next few days to test 3or 4 version that you mention. Fedora and Mintlook pretty cool.Will seeif it solvesmy hardware problem .I understand Arch is for more advanced users so i'll try it on a test machine just in case.

[ddrichardson]

For the people that's telling him to use Arch, have you even examined his post? It strongly suggests that he is new to the Linux world. Arch does not fit everyone; it's a needlessly complicated installer and system, breakage that needs high linux knowledge to fix, ect, ect.

The OP's origional question: I would probably go with Linux Mint.
With respect, did you examine his post? Mint is Debian based and uses the Ubuntu repositories, if there is a support issue with the GMA965 on the Vostro 1510 then its likely to be in Mint too.

It would seem sensible to try Fedora or SUSE.

[forrestcupp]

Or the less popular (at least here), but awesome Sabayon Linux. The cool thing about Sabayon is that you have your choice between installing binaries or using the Gentoo Portage system to compile everything. Also, Sabayon's initial install comes with all of the codecs and restricted stuff by default.

[ddrichardson]

Also, Sabayon's initial install comes with all of the codecs and restricted stuff by default.
I love it when people quote this as a plus - there are very good reasons why not all of us want these by default.

[Twitch6000]

If you dare,you could try Dream Linux 3.5 gnome edition.

I say if you dare because Dream Linux has started to become known for hard as anything to install...

[kenweill]

With respect, did you examine his post? Mint is Debian based and uses the Ubuntu repositories, if there is a support issue with the GMA965 on the Vostro 1510 then its likely to be in Mint too.


There are hardware that works flawlessly with Mint that doesnt not work with Ubuntu. That was around the 1st LTS release of Ubuntu, and the Mint equivalent of that.

They are using the same repositories. But there are hardware that works out of the box with Mint that does not work in Ubuntu.

Based on my experience. Its more on detecting Monitor.

[ddrichardson]

There are hardware that works flawlessly with Mint that doesnt not work with Ubuntu. That was around the 1st LTS release of Ubuntu, and the Mint equivalent of that.
There are a lot of proprietary drivers by default in Mint though.

[forrestcupp]

I love it when people quote this as a plus - there are very good reasons why not all of us want these by default.

Right. And there are plenty of good options for people like you who care more about software freedom than ease of functionality.

But for those of us who appreciate software freedom, but we care more about functionality, we also have good choices, like Mint and Sabayon.

The beautiful thing is that we all have our freedom of choice, and no one can take away my freedom to choose non-free software when there is no free alternative for functionality.

[ddrichardson]

The beautiful thing is that we all have our freedom of choice, and no one can take away my freedom to choose non-free software when there is no free alternative for functionality.
I wasn't "taking away your freedom" but you have to remember that not everyone reading this forum understands that there are reasons why Ubuntu doesn't support them out of the box.

Sorry if this offended you but I think you're over reacting a touch.

[forrestcupp]

I wasn't "taking away your freedom" but you have to remember that not everyone reading this forum understands that there are reasons why Ubuntu doesn't support them out of the box.

Sorry if this offended you but I think you're over reacting a touch.

Well, I don't mean to overreact. It's just that there have been plenty of people around here that completely do not understand why anyone would want to have those things installed at all. And those people have generally been much more pushy than the ones who enjoy having the codecs, blobs, flash, etc.

I'm all for using and supporting free software every time there are viable options. But if the free offerings are not up to par, I don't really want to sacrifice usability just because of a philosophy. I'll appreciate the fact that the developers care enough about the Linux community to support us.

I think the reason that I overreacted is because I wasn't trying to start something; I was just trying to make a legitimate suggestion, and you criticized my suggestion. I was basically pointing out that Mint isn't the only distro that comes with restricted things installed by default.

[mips]

Alright I know this may sound like a troll on the dau of 9.04 final release but see on my Vostro 1510 my GM965 chipset is not recognized.


Why not set the kernel boot option to use VESA mode just to get the live cd booted. I assume you are using the LiveCD?

Also try the alternate installer ISO, I never had much luck with the LiveCD in later versions of Ubuntu.

[ddrichardson]

I think the reason that I overreacted is because I wasn't trying to start something; I was just trying to make a legitimate suggestion, and you criticized my suggestion. I was basically pointing out that Mint isn't the only distro that comes with restricted things installed by default.
I didn't criticise you, I replied.