The never-ending distro-hop.

[Shibblet]

Do you ever find yourself floundering between distributions. Things that worked great in a previous version, but broken in the update?


Want to try the new KDE or Gnome 3, but your distribution doesn't have it "yet" ?

All of your settings are gone now that your distribution no longer supports your previous desktop?

Some of your favorite programs aren't available from Distro A's repository, and other favorite programs aren't available from Distro B.


It just seems as if no matter what you try, you just can't get what you want.

For example: Kubuntu 11.10 is a great distro, but try to install Compiz or Emerald... Linux Mint Lisa has the MATE Desktop for Gnome 2 fans, but it doesn't 'quite' work right, "yet."

What can you do?

[Shazaam]

Install VirtualBox/VmWare and try them all!

[Shibblet]

Install VirtualBox/VmWare and try them all!

The only problem with VirtualBox, is it doesn't give you real "feel" for how the distributions work. Sometimes it's a real chore just getting 3D acceleration to work in VirtualBox.

[3Miro]

I have a 500GB HDD dedicated to other distros and multi-boot. I am using Gentoo + XFCE as the main one, but I also have Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian. Any time I want to try something different, I would switch to another distro, but the main one is always intact.

[Shibblet]

I have a 500GB HDD dedicated to other distros and multi-boot. I am using Gentoo + XFCE as the main one, but I also have Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian. Any time I want to try something different, I would switch to another distro, but the main one is always intact.

What was it about Gentoo that made it your "main" distro?

[azmyth]

I don't care which distro you use. You will have issues since it's software. I guess it depends on how important you need something over something else.

[Shibblet]

I don't care which distro you use. You will have issues since it's software. I guess it depends on how important you need something over something else.

That's exactly my point. Why is there no way to have it all, and have it all work correctly?

[angryfirelord]

What can you do?
Install a minimal setup of Debian (or Ubuntu) and build up on the customizations from there. Don't like what you see? Tear it down and start again!

[collisionystm]

Do you ever find yourself floundering between distributions. Things that worked great in a previous version, but broken in the update?


Want to try the new KDE or Gnome 3, but your distribution doesn't have it "yet" ?
All of your settings are gone now that your distribution no longer supports your previous desktop?
Some of your favorite programs aren't available from Distro A's repository, and other favorite programs aren't available from Distro B.


It just seems as if no matter what you try, you just can't get what you want.

For example: Kubuntu 11.10 is a great distro, but try to install Compiz or Emerald... Linux Mint Lisa has the MATE Desktop for Gnome 2 fans, but it doesn't 'quite' work right, "yet."

What can you do?

There is nothing wrong with distro hopping. It keeps you on your toes ;)

Right now I am using OpenSuse 12.1 with gnome-shell. Its really cool and I like yast a lot. Now that gnome extensions is live i find myself more distracted with gnome than other distros

[wolfen69]

That's exactly my point. Why is there no way to have it all, and have it all work correctly?

I have it all, and it works correctly. :D

[digithal]

What can you do?
Arch Linux (http://www.archlinux.org/) :)

Why I like it?
1. Because it's full-rolling independent distribution.
1. It's lightweight and comes without bunch of stuff that I don't need.
2. Because I can configure it the way I like and use it the way I want.
3. Because of pacman - probably the best and fastest package manager (plus you can make your own pkgbuilds so easy).
4. Cuz of great wiki (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page) and community.
5. And finally, but not last, Arch User Repository (AUR (https://aur.archlinux.org/)), where you can find almost every package that is not included in official repositories.

[cbowman57]

digithal, you left off:

6. abs

:)

[IWantFroyo]

I just move all my files onto the computer, and try to get it set up in precisely the right way. By the time I'm done, I'm way less likely to reinstall. Too much effort doing it again.

If you are actually trying to feed the distro-hopping gluttony inside you, then another hard drive or some partitions/VMs is a good idea.

[matt3839]

Yes, and at the end of the day, I just kept coming back to Windows. For some reason, having an inflexible, restrictive OS installed was kinda calming in that I wasn't tempted to try to customize it much, especially when something as simple as a visual theme required shoddy hacks to get to work. But eventually, this coddled feeling bothered me and I got tired of using an OS with a million and one quirks that bugged me; I don't hate Windows, but I find it far too unintuitive to get any real work done.

Then, of course, I stumbled onto the Ubuntu minimal CD, so now I enjoy being able to install a comfortably customized system, while also having far more support, both in hardware and software, thanks to PPAs, and sane configuration defaults for a desktop distribution is nice. It's also awesome to have one little disc I can use to install on any computer depending on my needs. I *did* have issues with Ubuntu in the past, but it seems that the wrinkles have been ironed out more than enough.

I've learned so, so much now that I have a stable, intuitive and modern workplace. Ubuntu is a marvel of modern technology.

[jjex22]

What was it about Gentoo that made it your "main" distro?

Awesome timing - a different thread reignited my interest in Gentoo yesterday (It was my first real linux install - I went there after 2 weeks with fedora, and what I came to understand was a sarcastic piece of advice that Gentoo will teach me everything!)

I must say if you're crazy fussy, the only system that let's you personalise it more would be linux from scratch! Just my opinion, but If you're a total distro junkie like me, a classic Gentoo install starting from stage 3 is one of those things you may just love, that or for a slightly less scary text install - installing debian from another linux system.

As I say I'm a total distro junkie - I have to pretty much force myself to keep ubuntu and Open SUSE as my main 2, and just configure them to hell - other than that I have a networked virtual machine drive, and 2 machines have seperate HDDs just so I can try distros... I have a problem, but I embrace it!

[3Miro]

What was it about Gentoo that made it your "main" distro?

Other than it makes for a good show-off, I like the Gentoo XFCE support. Many distros would first include Gnome and then make a XFCE spin by just replacing some Gnome components with XFCE. The result is not optimal. Only Gentoo gives the ability to not only install what you want, but the unwanted features are not even compiled into the system.

There are other advantages as well. Gentoo has the most flexible package system. On one hand, making packages is relatively easy (easier then shipping binaries) hence the repos are pretty big considering the size of the community. Then you have a great control on individual packages' version, right now I can chose between the latest Firefox or the old-stable 3.6 and I can make such selection for most packages. Gentoo is rolling like Arch, but you can go less of a "bleeding-edge" and more stable, if you want to.

[doorknob60]

Yeah, from the time I first started using Ubuntu 7.04 in September 2007 and until about a year later when I tried Arch, I probably tried 5 or more different distros, and I would reinstall or change at least once every few weeks, for various reasons. I've stuck with Arch ever since then though (I still try out other distros on separate partitons or in Virtualbox, but stick with Arch as my main).

A lot of the reason is that it's always up to date, so I can try out new things right when they come out (New versions of Gnome, KDE, Firefox etc, that would always kinda mess up my system when I tried to update these things in non rolling distros). Also, it's been stable enough that I literally haven't needed to reinstall since my first install back in 2008. I did resinstall once because I was having A/V delay problems while watching videos, but that didn't fix it, and eventually I ound out it was because of a setting in Pulseaudio that caused all that *facepalm* If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have reinstalled, because everything else was still good as new.

Arch simply makes it very easy to switch around with any WM or DE, and easy to get the new versions of them too (I still switch DEs all the time, just don't need to switch distros anymore). Plus, I don't need to ever manually install software or mess with custom repos like PPAs, everything is either in the official repos, or on the semi-official (hosted on archlinux.org, but community made packages) AUR. This keeps a clean system, something that was very hard for me in Ubuntu, because I messed with things too much. Also, making your own AUR packages is easy, I've made almost 20 of them now.

[digithal]

digithal, you left off:

6. abs

:)
Oh, absolutely! I was wondering what I missed :D

[Mathor]

That's exactly my point. Why is there no way to have it all, and have it all work correctly?

try ubuntu 10.04, it's completely customizable. right click and add to desktop and panel galore :popcorn:

[BigSilly]

There is nothing wrong with distro hopping. It keeps you on your toes ;)

Right now I am using OpenSuse 12.1 with gnome-shell. Its really cool and I like yast a lot. Now that gnome extensions is live i find myself more distracted with gnome than other distros

You're still using it. Cool! I remember you saying that you were trying it out in another thread. I'm still with it too, and I'm staying put. :)

Honestly I don't like distro-hopping. It just takes up too much time and brain power. Having to weigh up pros and cons, constantly wiping out installations to try others, getting annoyed with something, switching back, switching back again, on and on...it's too much of a drag, and the longer it goes on the harder it gets to settle with one. I don't want anything challenging, just something that works properly.

[BrokenKingpin]

I did in my early days of Linux (years and years ago), but eventually settled on Debian for a few years. After that I migrated to Ubuntu because it was quicker to get a system up and running for desktop use. When Unity dropped, I did hop around a bit, but landed on Xubuntu, where I will probably be for some time to come.

[KiwiNZ]

I don't Distro hop. I have a couple of Distro's on test machines at any given time that's all. On my main machines I stick with ubuntu.

I have a theory for why folks Distro hop but sharing will only get me into strife.

[Shibblet]

I have a theory for why folks Distro hop but sharing will only get me into strife.

Strife away KiwiNZ, I'd love to hear your theory.

My personal reason is that I can't find a distribution that does everything that I want. I don't want to be bleeding edge, but I do want to be current.

[BrokenKingpin]

Strife away KiwiNZ, I'd love to hear your theory.

++... lets hear it KiwiNZ!

[collisionystm]

I think I distro hop hoping that Linux will be more than what it is

I get bored with features and I just want something brand new and shiny so I change

I cant wait until Debian has an official stable with gnome-shell. I really like suse but I miss debian

[sandyd]

I use three different distros, but I don't distro-hop. Frankly, its a waste of time, and you mostly end up where to started anyways.

My main computers (my two laptops and my desktop), run Gentoo.

The mediacenter runs Boxee on openbox on debian unstable.

My gateway server runs ubuntu/zentyal.

I generally like rolling releases more, because I really hate the upgrade process.

[BrokenKingpin]

I find new Linux users distro hop more than long time Linux users, probably just to see what is out there and what each distro offers.

The only time I really venture outside of the Ubuntu family is in search for a rolling release distro that actually works for me, and isn't a huge effor to setup.

[BigSilly]

It's true - you only end up running to stand still, but the OCD nut inside me still can't help jumping around releases. Though I'm on openSUSE at the mo, I'm already missing Ubuntu and will probably end up re-installing my image this weekend. I can't take my own advice sadly. :(

[PhilGil]

I've installed Debian Squeeze for quality and stability, and try to stay away from OMG Ubuntu so I'm not constantly pining for shiny new toys.

[KiwiNZ]

++... lets hear it KiwiNZ!

This is my opinion only.

Server side Linux is there, end of that story.

Linux on the Desktop is another story. For those who have modest computing requirements, e.g surfing the web, Facebook, simple Word processing, light photo management etc there are many Distributions available that meet this requirement, more or less. For example Redhat, Fedora, ubuntu and Suse to name a few. All these come with good package sets, easily obtained, often on magazine cover DVD's and for the most part easily installed. These modest users seldom have the need to load nothing more than the default set of programs.

Now my belief is , those who Distribution hop are those wanting more from their PC's, have higher hardware demands and seldom if ever use only the default set of programs. This group also has a high percentage of users who wish to customize their installs. Now given this I believe that for this group of users Linux is not ready for the desktop and as such they spend a lot of time and effort trying different distributions in an attempt to find one that meets their requirements.

Distribution hopping, or Distribution hoping, is a primary symptom that is indicative that Linux is not ready for the desktop.

[BigSilly]

This is my opinion only.

Server side Linux is there, end of that story.

Linux on the Desktop is another story. For those who have modest computing requirements, e.g surfing the web, Facebook, simple Word processing, light photo management etc there are many Distributions available that meet this requirement, more or less. For example Redhat, Fedora, ubuntu and Suse to name a few. All these come with good package sets, easily obtained, often on magazine cover DVD's and for the most part easily installed. These modest users seldom have the need to load nothing more than the default set of programs.

Now my belief is , those who Distribution hop are those wanting more from their PC's, have higher hardware demands and seldom if ever use only the default set of programs. This group also has a high percentage of users who wish to customize their installs. Now given this I believe that for this group of users Linux is not ready for the desktop and as such they spend a lot of time and effort trying different distributions in an attempt to find one that meets their requirements.

Distribution hopping, or Distribution hoping, is a primary symptom that is indicative that Linux is not ready for the desktop.

I can only say that this isn't the case for me. I only distro hop (or have done recently anyway) because I'm frightened of missing something!

[Johnny3]

I try a lot. But alway end up back with Ubuntu. Sometimes I my use something different for a few days. But then I am always happier with Ubuntu. Using 11.10 it is not perfect but close than the rest. Keep a widows 7 PC for my Canon printer and camera to print 4 pictures to a letter size paper.
Thanks and God Bless and a Merry Christmas Johnny3 65++

[cgroza]

I don't change distros often (recently settled with slackware after arch, still have an up to date Ubuntu install), but when I do it, it's because I want to make sure I am not missing something better by ignorance.

[KiwiNZ]

I can only say that this isn't the case for me. I only distro hop (or have done recently anyway) because I'm frightened of missing something!

Damn that's another symptom I meant to put in. The large amount and ever increasing amount of Distributions mean that the choice is way too big and the effort becomes too fragmented.
The result is instead of having a small number of 'completed' distributions we have a smorgasbord of incomplete constantly 'beta ready' distributions.

This smorgasbord brings about the 'what am I missing' syndrome.

[Johnny3]

I don't change distros often (recently settled with slackware after arch, still have an up to date Ubuntu install), but when I do it, it's because I want to make sure I am not missing something better by ignorance.

I looked at slackware. Remind me of DOS to much. Thought I would be dead by the time I got it installed.
Thanks and God Bless Johnny3 65++

[collisionystm]

Well there are so many different flavors of linux its only natural to distro hop.
I dont think its a bad thing at all.

how else would the next greatest distro be discovered without people going out and playing

[batharoy]

30+ iso's plus unetbootin plus thumbdrive = endless hours of playing with different distro's. The problem as the OP said, is getting everything you want into 1 install and working easily.

[Shibblet]

Now my belief is , those who Distribution hop are those wanting more from their PC's, have higher hardware demands and seldom if ever use only the default set of programs. This group also has a high percentage of users who wish to customize their installs. Now given this I believe that for this group of users Linux is not ready for the desktop and as such they spend a lot of time and effort trying different distributions in an attempt to find one that meets their requirements.

Wow. I completely agree with you.


Distribution hopping, or Distribution hoping, is a primary symptom that is indicative that Linux is not ready for the desktop.

That may be that Windows users are used to having all of their high end equipment work. This is kind of difficult when it comes to Linux (in general). Even something as simple as loading device drivers, especially if they don't exist. ;)

[Dlambert]

I change my OS'es atleast once a week!

[Shibblet]

I have long debated the Windows vs. (Distro) Linux fight for many years.

I have also found that there are certain things about OS's like MacOSX and Windows that are beneficial, and things about Linux that are as well.

Windows and MacOSX are very restrictive in terms of interface. You use the OS with their included desktop environment. Linux is very different that way, just with official Ubuntu releases, you have 4 (or is it 5) different desktop environments. With other distros, you have a lot of different DE's.

Then you have different types of distros, and this comes down to package management. The biggest ones are DEB-ian, and RPM.

A long time ago, I was trying to tell a friend of mine how much better PC games are than Console. This was when Sega Genesis was hot-stuff. I said the sound, the graphics, and the games were significantly better. He said, "Sure. On your computer they are. But not on mine." Then he followed up with "That's the best part about 'Genesis'. I take my game to ANYONE elses Genesis and it's going to play the same, no installing, no tweaking. Just pop in the cartridge, and off we go."

Linux is all about tweaking... Windows isn't.

[inobe]

Do you ever find yourself floundering between distributions. Things that worked great in a previous version, but broken in the update?


yes, it happens.



Want to try the new KDE or Gnome 3, but your distribution doesn't have it "yet" ?


for kde on most distributions you can upgrade versions.

http://www.kubuntu.org/news/kde-sc-473


All of your settings are gone now that your distribution no longer supports your previous desktop?

for kde the settings follow unfortunately!


Some of your favorite programs aren't available from Distro A's repository, and other favorite programs aren't available from Distro B.


yes, we can grab the source tarball and compile it, or wait for a pre compiled rpm, deb....


It just seems as if no matter what you try, you just can't get what you want.

trying to get and learning in the process "priceless"


For example: Kubuntu 11.10 is a great distro, but try to install Compiz or Emerald...

What can you do?

you can learn more by reading about it, at least what you find relevant.

http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KWin/4.0-release-notes

there are way to make kwin do very nice things,

[KiwiNZ]

I have long debated the Windows vs. (Distro) Linux fight for many years.

I have also found that there are certain things about OS's like MacOSX and Windows that are beneficial, and things about Linux that are as well.

Windows and MacOSX are very restrictive in terms of interface. You use the OS with their included desktop environment. Linux is very different that way, just with official Ubuntu releases, you have 4 (or is it 5) different desktop environments. With other distros, you have a lot of different DE's.

Then you have different types of distros, and this comes down to package management. The biggest ones are DEB-ian, and RPM.

A long time ago, I was trying to tell a friend of mine how much better PC games are than Console. This was when Sega Genesis was hot-stuff. I said the sound, the graphics, and the games were significantly better. He said, "Sure. On your computer they are. But not on mine." Then he followed up with "That's the best part about 'Genesis'. I take my game to ANYONE elses Genesis and it's going to play the same, no installing, no tweaking. Just pop in the cartridge, and off we go."

Linux is all about tweaking... Windows isn't.

To me it comes down to this, horses for courses.

I simply use the best solution for the task at hand, be it Windows, OSX, Linux, or Unix.

[thaelim]

I try not to hop any more as it takes so much time to fiddle with all the settings (I love to tweak my installs to within an inch of their life). My intention these days is to stick with Gnome Shell - it works so well that I don't feel any need whatsoever to go trying something else :P

[kellemes]

I simply use the best solution for the task at hand, be it Windows, OSX, Linux, or Unix.

Indeed..

I've been hopping for 10 years or so looking for the perfect system and never really found it.
I have a household with many devices running all kind of os's for different tasks and different types of users.

And so I use Arch Linux on my main system, I always have another system setup with Windows (work related), the wife uses an old laptop with Crunchbang, the kids use an even older laptop with Puppy Linux, I just bought a new laptop for my elderly mother with Windows installed.. that's simply what she's used to and comfortable with.
All function just fine.

[Shibblet]

I've been hopping for 10 years or so looking for the perfect system and never really found it.

Yep, I feel you there. I've been hopping since Hardy. It's like I can only get a distro that covers up to 90% of what I need. And that distro has always been Ubuntu/Kubuntu. It tends to have the best repositories, and the most available packages.

I have tried to load Compiz on Kubuntu to no avail. So that means Emerald is out of the question too. That's frustrating, because I have a specific I like my desktop to function. Certain features of Compiz let me know what function I have done, when I am zipping through.

But Compiz doesn't work the way it used to. I'm hoping that the MATE project brings back the classic Gnome 2 Shell.

[BrokenKingpin]

Now my belief is , those who Distribution hop are those wanting more from their PC's, have higher hardware demands and seldom if ever use only the default set of programs. This group also has a high percentage of users who wish to customize their installs. Now given this I believe that for this group of users Linux is not ready for the desktop and as such they spend a lot of time and effort trying different distributions in an attempt to find one that meets their requirements.

Distribution hopping, or Distribution hoping, is a primary symptom that is indicative that Linux is not ready for the desktop.
Can you expand upon what you mean by "custom installs". If you are talking about hardware specifically, then I agree. With bleeding edge or less popular hardware, support for Linux may be an issue. Although, I find hardware support for the average computer (desktop, laptop, or netbook) to be very good, and more hardware manufacturers are supporting Linux.

But if by "custom installs" you mean a highly tweaked system (UI, applications, etc.) and not necessarily hardware, then I would say Linux is one of the only real choices for this type of setup. Windows and Mac offer very little in terms of customization, at least compared to Linux. If this type of user is hopping around because the customization doesn't meet their needs, they sure are not going to find it on Windows or Mac... and no current OS is ready for the desktop by this definition lol.

I would say a large number of people who disro hop are recently coming from Windows, and love the idea of Linux (free, open source), but it just doesn't meet their needs in terms of application or hardware support. And in a lot of these cases it is probably down to ignorance in not being familiar with the new system.

[Shibblet]

I would say a large number of people who disro hop are recently coming from Windows, and love the idea of Linux (free, open source), but it just doesn't meet their needs in terms of application or hardware support. And in a lot of these cases it is probably down to ignorance in not being familiar with the new system.

That sounds about right. When I first started my "exodus" from Windows, I found that things were easier for me to accomplish in Windows. However, once I started learning Linux, I realized it wasn't "easier", it was just more "familiar."

I personally just want to find a distro that has everything I want in it. I think I may have finally found it this last weekend.

My basic critera was:

Ubuntu Repositories
The ability to add PPA's
Compiz Effects (adjustable to my personal settings)
Emerald Theme Manager


Compiz was the killer for Ubuntu and Kubuntu... So I fired up Xubuntu and giggled myself to happiness. Of course, I don't have Emerald working as of yet, but I'm sure I can fix that.