PDA

View Full Version : Should I try some other distros too?



ngsupb
July 24th, 2009, 10:55 AM
Guys, please help me to figure out what to do :P

Current state of things: Using Ubuntu at work and home. Don't have any problems. It is optimized and really fast and does everything I need.

My AIM: I always like to do things faster and faster. A thought that something can be faster than Ubuntu doesn't leave me alone. I read about ARh linux, and positives responses about it....
I know about Gentoo, but don't want to spend so much time on compiling it.


My spec: an Asus with 2Gb ram, Core Duo 1.66

1. Do you think that Arch based on xface could work even faster than Ubuntu? Will it be noticeable?
Or since I have enough ram, there won't be any difference?


2. Will I be able to use the same programs I use on Gnome? Or I will have to look for some other alternatives.

3. Does it worth a try and spending some time on learning it to get some speed benefits (will I get it? )?

overdrank
July 24th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Moved to The Community Cafe

stwschool
July 24th, 2009, 11:56 AM
Of course you should. Grab a copy of virtualbox, download some CD images and get playing. It's good for you, you learn a lot from it and you have a lot of fun too. I'm in the middle of a Slackware install as I type, just to see how it goes.

binbash
July 24th, 2009, 12:12 PM
You should try these :

Sidux, Arch Linux, Gent00 and PcLinuxOS

wil
July 24th, 2009, 12:12 PM
When I started I went through many distos, it was fun in the beginning, and I think that is the key.

I would encourage you to go a head and try a few distos.

I loved Gentoo and I really think that it is ahead of it's time. (one day compiling will get as fast as installing so there will be no need for binaries). Gentoo is also the distro that I learnt to most from.

For me right now I am happy with Ubuntu, it may be one step behind at one moment and a step ahead another, so to save a few ms here or there is not worth it

:-)

stwschool
July 24th, 2009, 12:16 PM
I'd really love to get Gentoo up and running some time, it's something I'd be able to have sooooo much fun with :)

Bigtime_Scrub
July 24th, 2009, 12:20 PM
Sidux is fast. As is Zenwalk and Arch.

You might wanna also try some *BSD's as they are also fast.

Note though that none of these are as easy as Ubuntu.

stwschool
July 24th, 2009, 12:25 PM
To be honest you can get fast with Ubuntu's ease of use through Crunchbang, the latest one of which is really sexy looking.

snek
July 24th, 2009, 12:31 PM
I've tried countless amounts of distro's as well, lots of them were quite fun but eventually I was done with tinkering and just wanted something that was easy to use. That's when I decided to stick with Ubuntu.

You could have a look at Fedora and CentOS. Especially CentOS is great if you want to mess with corporate server-like programs. Fedora is the same although mostly geared towards a normal user, but it has the option to install most of the software CentOS uses.

Note though that none of the other distro's look & feel as slick as Ubuntu.

If you're really up for a challenge try out FreeBSD and setup a Gnome desktop manually, that's what taught me the most, I think. They have a great "handbook", as they call it, which can guide you through almost anything you want to do.

VCoolio
July 24th, 2009, 12:44 PM
As long as you're not screwing up a vital pc it's very much ok to try out things of course. I'm too happy with Jaunty (or Ubuntu in general) to change that, and it comes with great support and a lot of stuff with repos. And I know how it works now, more or less. So I'm not going any further than experimenting with window managers (e17, I'm going to stick with that one, and Openbox since a few days for the fun of it). That's speeding up things too.

Bigtime_Scrub
July 24th, 2009, 12:49 PM
I've tried countless amounts of distro's as well, lots of them were quite fun but eventually I was done with tinkering and just wanted something that was easy to use. That's when I decided to stick with Ubuntu.

You could have a look at Fedora and CentOS. Especially CentOS is great if you want to mess with corporate server-like programs. Fedora is the same although mostly geared towards a normal user, but it has the option to install most of the software CentOS uses.

Note though that none of the other distro's look & feel as slick as Ubuntu.

If you're really up for a challenge try out FreeBSD and setup a Gnome desktop manually, that's what taught me the most, I think. They have a great "handbook", as they call it, which can guide you through almost anything you want to do.

If you are going to install FreeBSD and get a functional desktop PC with a manual install of Gnome you better free your calender for a few days. It will take some time. ](*,) You will learn a lot though.

Little Bit
July 24th, 2009, 01:04 PM
If it ain't broke, why fix it?

As a total n00b I don't dare "hop" yet until I've learned a lot more. But maybe I'll get geeky enough to start "tweaking" and stuff. I'm also lucky because I have a private Linux tutor who "pre-tweaked" my Ubuntu when he installed it for me.

Amy

SirBismuth
July 24th, 2009, 01:10 PM
I have downloaded ISOs for the PC-BSD and Gentoo.

Already setup a VM to install Gentoo, but it was having network issues (via proxy), will give it a go later again.
.
Am actually going to set this up on VMs at home, faster system.

B

ngsupb
July 24th, 2009, 01:15 PM
It appears everyone tried other distroes except of me:D

Yea, I think I will try Arch though. FreeBSD isn't for me.

What about the software for Arch, do you think I will be able to use all the same I have on Ubuntu?

kk0sse54
July 24th, 2009, 02:02 PM
If you are going to install FreeBSD and get a functional desktop PC with a manual install of Gnome you better free your calender for a few days. It will take some time. ](*,) You will learn a lot though.

Where did you get this time? It did not take a few days for me to set gnome on my FreeBSD.


What about the software for Arch, do you think I will be able to use all the same I have on Ubuntu?

Yes of course, just learn to use yaourt as well as pacman

swoll1980
July 24th, 2009, 02:09 PM
I've tried about 30 different distros, and I can't for the life of me see a difference in them. Really the only difference I've found is inferior hardware support, and more difficult installations. Which is why I always end up here again.

heroidi
July 24th, 2009, 02:16 PM
I've tried about 30 different distros, and I can't for the life of me see a difference in them. Really the only difference I've found is inferior hardware support, and more difficult installations. Which is why I always end up here again.

same here man!

XubuRoxMySox
July 24th, 2009, 06:19 PM
After playing around with PCLinuxOS on my uncle's recommendation (he said, "Best Linux EVER!" I asked, "how many have you tried?" His answer: "um, one... just this one"), I went back to 'buntu, but kept experimenting with "better" or "light weight" or "faster" Debian/Ubuntu-based distros (Mint, U-Lite, Sidux, LXDEbian) and settled on a lightweight, powerful, and "goth/sexy" distro called Crunchbang Linux (based on Ubuntu, too!). Works awesomely on older hardware.

I keep my Ubuntu/LXDE remix on my laptop that other people use occasionally because it's easier and has a familiar-looking desktop with icons to click on.

-Robin

SuperSonic4
July 24th, 2009, 06:21 PM
If it ain't broke, why fix it?

As a total n00b I don't dare "hop" yet until I've learned a lot more. But maybe I'll get geeky enough to start "tweaking" and stuff. I'm also lucky because I have a private Linux tutor who "pre-tweaked" my Ubuntu when he installed it for me.

Amy

If you can make significant improvements why not fix it?

mud420
July 24th, 2009, 06:24 PM
If you have any problem with your computer ( Hardware or Software )
So do not waste your money on its repairation
Just visit the site and learn solve of any problem!

http://www.tectips.co.cc

Thanks

khelben1979
July 24th, 2009, 07:41 PM
In either case I believe it's good to know that there are alternatives:

Comparison of Linux distributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions)

kk0sse54
July 24th, 2009, 07:45 PM
In either case I believe it's good to know that there are alternatives:

Comparison of Linux distributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions)

Another place for comparisons is polishlinux.org (http://polishlinux.org/choose/comparison/?distro1=Debian&distro2=Arch), just pick two OSs and you'll be able to compare them on multiple levels

Greg
July 24th, 2009, 08:00 PM
It appears everyone tried other distroes except of me:D

Yea, I think I will try Arch though. FreeBSD isn't for me.

What about the software for Arch, do you think I will be able to use all the same I have on Ubuntu?

Besides distro-specific tools, such as apt-get, you'll be able to configure the same software. It might be a good idea, however, to try out some other window managers besides GNOME. Playing with new WMs is the biggest fun.

And read the Beginner's Guide. Rely on the wiki. Those who don't do not fare well.

Little Bit
July 24th, 2009, 08:46 PM
If you can make significant improvements why not fix it?

Because I'm still a total n00bie! It may be possible to improve it, but as long as I still don't even know what I want yet, I'm happy leaving the improvements to the developers and people who know alot more than me. And besides, my Ubuntu is a s special remix made "just for me" by a friend. All I have changed so far is the wallpaper, lol. When I'm ready and know what I'm aiming for, I'll go exploring for sure.

Amy

CJ Master
July 24th, 2009, 09:00 PM
My spec: an Asus with 2Gb ram, Core Duo 1.66

1. Do you think that Arch based on xface could work even faster than Ubuntu? Will it be noticeable?
Or since I have enough ram, there won't be any difference?


2. Will I be able to use the same programs I use on Gnome? Or I will have to look for some other alternatives.

3. Does it worth a try and spending some time on learning it to get some speed benefits (will I get it? )?

1. It's xfce. :P Oh yes, much faster... heck, even Arch+Gnome/KDE is faster then Ubuntu for me. Arch has a blazing kernel and everything is compiled for i686, so you will notice a definite speed improvement. Plus, since you set everything up yourself, there will be nothing you don't need running, running.

2. Desktop environments such as Gnome, XFCE, KDE, etc can all run the same applications, and with the new GTK and QT, it can look pretty good on all of them.

3. Defiantly worth doing, not just for the speed benefits... It's all about total control of your system. ...plus, AUR is the best thing since sliced bread. :D

Based on your post though, it is worth knowing that Xubuntu has a totally messed up XFCE interface. Vanilla XFCE isn't like that at all. I would suggest Arch+KDEMod.

aesis05401
July 24th, 2009, 09:26 PM
There are many good suggestions in this thread.. but I don't understand why LFS never gets mentioned in conversations like this.

If you aren't looking to change distros, just to understand the ties that bind all the distros together, use the LinuxFromScratch stable instructions.

Don't start out with the intention of maintaining a working install (ie: don't waste the effort figuring out a long-term patching strategy). Just build one working LFS system as an experiment.

Once you have done this you will be able to open your terminal in Ubuntu, look at a few system files, and understand what makes Ubuntu different from standard Linux distros.

Many people do not know that there are Linux Standards that define base install functionality and recommended directory structures. These are the sorts of things that distros tweak to suit their target audience.

Once you have set up one LFS system from beginning to end, you can throw the LFS system itself in the trash. The important part is understanding the basic layout and function of a very stripped down, but fully functional standard Linux install.

*(***)*

Attempting to build LFS installs using Ubuntu standard libraries makes a lot of extra work - and is not recommended by the developers. Once you are done with your first complete build you will understand why ;)

Anyone who is going to attempt this in a VM from an Ubuntu host will want to do the following:

Download the LFS 6.3 stable livecd
Download the LFS 6.4 stable packages, patches, and instructions
Download VirtualBox
Boot into 6.3 livecd in a VirtualBox VM
mount .vdi partition with 6.4 packages, patches, instructions
Follow 6.4 instructions to build your system inside the VM.

Make sure you make a lot of snapshots along the way, as you may find a desire to go back to particular stages of the build to experiment with tweaks after you have completed the process once all the way through.

ngsupb
July 24th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Guys, thanks you all a lot. I have already downloaded Arch linux, going to try it :D

I will install it on my Virtualbox, after I figure how it works, will configure it as a second distro on my notebook.
Whoot, it should be something interesting!

CJ Master, thank you for the good answers. Still I need to know what is the difference between applications that are intended for Gnome or Kde or XFCE etc. Before I thought that if an application is codded for Gnome it won't work on other environments. Appears it isn't.
Would be nice to read for me some documentation about environments and applications for them.

ngsupb
July 24th, 2009, 09:37 PM
aesis05401, I am afraid to go so deep and build my own LFS. It is a lot of time!

I just want to be a user :D (a lot of other work :( )

aesis05401
July 24th, 2009, 09:49 PM
aesis05401, I am afraid to go so deep and build my own LFS. It is a lot of time!

I just want to be a user :D (a lot of other work :( )

It's not the right option for many people - I just get a little frustrated that hand-rolling never gets mentioned anymore ;)

Best of luck with Arch - I have heard many good things.

Greg
July 24th, 2009, 09:54 PM
Guys, thanks you all a lot. I have already downloaded Arch linux, going to try it :D

I will install it on my Virtualbox, after I figure how it works, will configure it as a second distro on my notebook.
Whoot, it should be something interesting!

CJ Master, thank you for the good answers. Still I need to know what is the difference between applications that are intended for Gnome or Kde or XFCE etc. Before I thought that if an application is codded for Gnome it won't work on other environments. Appears it isn't.
Would be nice to read for me some documentation about environments and applications for them.

It's all about libraries. You can download ktorrent on a gnome machine, the only thing is it pulls in KDE dependencies, so it's less resource consuming to grab Transmission instead. They all work wherever, though.

CJ Master
July 24th, 2009, 10:14 PM
CJ Master, thank you for the good answers. Still I need to know what is the difference between applications that are intended for Gnome or Kde or XFCE etc. Before I thought that if an application is codded for Gnome it won't work on other environments. Appears it isn't.
Would be nice to read for me some documentation about environments and applications for them.

Graphical applications are programed with two toolkits available: GTK and QT.

Different desktop enviroments use one of those two toolkits. For example, Gnome/Xfce uses the GTK toolkit, while KDE uses the QT toolkit.

Toolkits are cross-compatible. It used to look funky on other systems, but recently it looks more and more normal.

So basically, most programs are available for all desktop environments, although they may look a little strange.