More Advanced Distros

[chessnerd]

Alright, I've used Linux for six months now and I would like to try a tougher distro. I've looked at Live CDs for Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mandriva, Linux Mint, and a few others, but none of them really seem much tougher to me.

Here's what I'm looking for:
1. The distro's boot menu can triple boot into Ubuntu, Windows 2000, and that distro.
2. The distro will work on my limited hardware: 384 MB RAM, 1.7GHz P4, 128MB GeForce graphics card.
3. The distro isn't going to make me hate my life. (AKA - I want it to require more knowledge than Ubuntu to run successfully but I don't want it to be so unstable that a bad boot might trash my system)
4. If possible, a bare-bones style distro where you need to build it from the ground up would be nice (unless you guys think that would be too advanced for me), however a full but basic distro wouldn't be bad either.

The WM or DE doesn't really matter, I can work with Openbox or Fluxbox just fine, but I would prefer if the default wasn't Gnome so I could learn a new GUI style.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: By "advanced" I mean that it takes an intermediate to advanced Linux user to use such a distro, not that it has the coolest gizmos and gadgets.

[sunexplodes]

Arch, dude. Arch.

[Twitch6000]

Arch Linux Or Sabayon.

Slackware is another one aswell.

[stwschool]

I know Sabayon's based on Gentoo but is it really that advanced? Looks like just another gnome to me.

[chessnerd]

Alright, I'm downloading an Arch iso right now and I'm reading about Sabayon on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, however, Sabayon and Slackware are out because I don't have any spare DVDs laying around to put the distro on, only CDs. (Guess I should have listed that under limitations.)

Edit: I didn't read far enough apparently. Sabayon also has a miniEdition for CD. I'll check that out.

[Twitch6000]

I know Sabayon's based on Gentoo but is it really that advanced? Looks like just another gnome to me.

Yes it is. It is gentoo with a nice user friendly gui and gui tools.

Not to mention gentoos packaging tools :p.

I mentioned it cause gentoo takes forever when sabayon doesn't take as long to set up.

[swoll1980]

What do you mean by "advanced"? If you mean the most modern, easy to use, most gui tools, automatic configuration, best hardware detection Then it's Ubuntu all the way. If you want the hardest to use, or more "primitive" then you would want to use something like Arch, or Gentoo. I think people got advanced, and primitive mixed up somewhere along the line.

[Skripka]

Guys guys guys.


The OP SPECIFICALLY SAID that:


3. The distro isn't going to make me hate my life. (AKA - need more knowledge than Ubuntu to run it

That rules out just about everything tossed by so far. i.e. Arch, i.e. Slack etc.

[stwschool]

Alright, I'm downloading an Arch iso right now and I'm reading about Sabayon on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, however, Sabayon and Slackware are out because I don't have any spare DVDs laying around to put the distro on, only CDs. (Guess I should have listed that under limitations.)

Edit: I didn't read far enough apparently. Sabayon also has a miniEdition for CD. I'll check that out.
Most distros these days can run their installers from a USB stick.

[chessnerd]

Whoa. Hold up. I apparently made some major communication errors and I apologize for that.


What do you mean by "advanced"?

I mean that it takes a more advanced Linux user to use such a distro. I would like to become a more advanced Linux user and I think the best way to do that is to force me to work hard at learning a new, tougher distro.




3. The distro isn't going to make me hate my life. (AKA - need more knowledge than Ubuntu to run it
That rules out just about everything tossed by so far. i.e. Arch, i.e. Slack etc.

What I meant by my AKA statement was that it should be more difficult to use than Ubuntu, but that at the same time it won't become an unstable mess. You cut off part of my quote.

[chessnerd]

Most distros these days can run their installers from a USB stick.

Yes, but my hardware can't. (Dell Optiplex GX240 from 2001) ;)

[loomsen]

Guys guys guys.


The OP SPECIFICALLY SAID that:



That rules out just about everything tossed by so far. i.e. Arch, i.e. Slack etc.

:lolflag:

@topic

GNOME is GNOME and will be GNOME for every distro you're gonna be tryin.

There isn't much of a difference whether using a rpm based distro compared to a deb based.
The actual differences are, as already mentioned, lying in the way to handle packages.

If you really want it from scratch, LFS is what you want (tho I think this might be excluded due to


3. The distro isn't going to make me hate my life

[Arup]

Give sidux a try with smxi upgrade, its the most cutting edge with latest 2.6.30 kernel and KDE.

[Skripka]

What I meant by my AKA statement was that it should be more difficult to use than Ubuntu, but that at the same time it won't become an unstable mess. You cut off part of my quote.

One thing to understand is that most distros aren't actually more difficult to use--it is that they are much more involved in setting up, and maintaining and customizing them over the long term teaches you more. They all have their quirks though-as well as their own vocabulary of commands specific to them.

Arch is as hard to build as Mac&Cheese is to cook--you simply have to read and understand and do, and voila-you have an OS after an hour...and a DE or WM of your pick after 5 minutes of typing and an hour or so of downloading packages. The result being a system where you know everything that is on it, because you put it there.

[chessnerd]

One thing to understand is that most distros aren't actually more difficult to use--it is that they are much more involved in setting up, and maintaining and customizing them over the long term teaches you more. They all have their quirks though-as well as their own vocabulary of commands specific to them.

So does that mean that if I want to learn more about Linux that I should try to use as many different distos as possible or are there a few in particular that will give me the most knowledge about the inner workings of Linux?


Arch is as hard to build as Mac&Cheese is to cook--you simply have to read and understand and do, and voila-you have an OS after an hour...and a DE or WM of your pick after 5 minutes of typing and an hour or so of downloading packages. The result being a system where you know everything that is on it, because you put it there.

Sounds similar to building your own computer (hardware wise), which I would very much like to do at some point. Seems like Arch will be a good experience for me and could prove to be a robust OS for my system because it won't have any extra packages that I never use.

[loomsen]

Give sidux a try with smxi upgrade, its the most cutting edge with latest 2.6.30 kernel and KDE.

+1

I like sidux too and have it installed on a USB stick to be able to plug it in wherever I am.

[loomsen]

that will give me the most knowledge about the inner workings of Linux?

LFS

You're gonna be building linux right from scratch including creating the directory structure manually

[sertse]

Give sidux a try with smxi upgrade, its the most cutting edge with latest 2.6.30 kernel and KDE.

But, that's not what he's asking. I'll argue sidux is great because it offer the latest apps and rolling release in the easiest possible way. A Live-cd installing to a working desktop. That's definitely not advanced ;)

[chessnerd]

Give sidux a try with smxi upgrade, its the most cutting edge with latest 2.6.30 kernel and KDE.

I'll download and try out the lite version on Live CD at some point.


LFS

You're gonna be building linux right from scratch including creating the directory structure manually

:shock:

I'll work with Arch for a while before I try that, but that sounds like it would be a lot of fun once I've learned more about Linux from Arch.

[sunexplodes]

LFS does not sound like my idea of fun. There's a line where knowing about your computer becomes more about bragging rights than practicality, and I think a "distro" where you compile EVERY SINGLE PACKAGE from the kernel to the DE from source seems a little excessive, much less time-consuming.

Arch strikes a good balance of under-the-hood configuration and speedy, sensible package management.

[tjwoosta]

are there a few in particular that will give me the most knowledge about the inner workings of Linux?

I would say Arch is one of them, Gentoo would be great too, but theres alot of compiling to do.

[sunexplodes]

Yeah, my understanding is that Arch and Gentoo are around a similar level of complexity, but Arch has binary package management, and Gentoo's source-based, so certainly takes longer. But of course, there are upsides and downsides to each approach.

[Arup]

But, that's not what he's asking. I'll argue sidux is great because it offer the latest apps and rolling release in the easiest possible way. A Live-cd installing to a working desktop. That's definitely not advanced ;)

sidux is hard core mostly cli and you need to know what you are doing to run it, one of the reasons its so fast right out of the box, granted its not Gentoo or Arch but it gives you a good start to rolling your own.