How long did it take you to pick a Distro/DE?

TSDible

Golden Member
Nov 4, 1999
1,697
0
76
Or do you ever really pick one?

I love the fact that I'm so free to try different distros and desktop environments with linux now that I have fully supported hardware.

So far I've tried...

Ubuntu
Xubuntu
PCLinuxOS (used to love this one in the day)
Mint - MATE
Mint - Cinnamon
Mint - XFCE
LMDE - XFCE
Mageia
Puppy
Debian - I'm not quite ready for this
Arch - See above

I really wanted to love Linux Mint Debian Edition, but the stability just wasn't there. Or I should rephrase... I don't have quite the skills to tweak it to where it needs to be yet. So far, I've found Ubuntu and Mint (MATE) to be the most stable. I really like where cinnamon is going, but I found a few annoying issues with it.

I think I really prefer apt as a package management system, so I think I've decided to stay with distros that support that. Ubuntu derivatives seem to be solid and easy to set up.

So right now, I'm running Mint (MATE) and plan on adding more DE to it to play around.

So my question...

How often do you distro hop?

How long did it take you decide on a base distribution and DE?

What about a DE? Do most of you stick to one? Or are you constantly exploring new ones?

Ultimately... what is your prefered distribution and DE that you find yourself going back to?
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
If you count all of the time I spent reinstalling, learning, playing, etc while still using Win9X and NT4 it probably took me 5 or so years to settle on Debian. Once the Debian way finally clicked all of the rest seemed to get too many things "wrong" for me. The huge package repository, quality and consistency of the packages, documentation, etc were leaps and bounds of that put out by others. Now I'm not sure how they all compare, but I'm sticking with Debian as long as it exists. Ubuntu has wandered way too far for me to consider them for day to day use now.

I try to keep a vague familiarity with RedHat because they're still the commercial leader, but that's about it.

For DE, I used E16 for a very long time but had some issues a while back and E17 was too different and had issues with multiple monitors so I'm on XFCE and will probably stick with that until something major happens.
 

ControlD

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2005
5,440
44
91
I have one hard drive in my tower that is dedicated to distro hopping so I can easily test out different flavors of Linux and/or desktop environments. I think that is part of the fun of Linux so I'm not sure I will ever stop trying different flavors.

When I start playing with a new distro (or even another OS like perhaps OS X at times) I always try to set forth what my end goals are. I know that I have certain tasks that I want to accomplish and certain applications that I need to run. I start with a base installation and then work through the various issues until I have what I consider a fully functional system. If I can not get to that point then I wipe the install and start with something else. If I get a functional system then I try to use that for my main computing platform for at least a couple of weeks to get a fair impression. I try to do this a few times a year just to get a feeling for where things are moving.

As far as my go to disto, right now that is Mint KDE. I also prefer Debian based distros, mainly due to the insanely easy package management. Mint also has a large community and access to Ubuntu backports which is a huge plus. Also, most troubleshooting problems can be fixed with information from Ubuntu help sources.

I think I have tried almost every DE out there, and KDE for me is the best I have tried and not by a small margin. I also really like MATE, but I have not found a compelling reason to leave KDE yet and I'm not sure I ever will.
 
Last edited:

Stone Rain

Member
Feb 25, 2013
159
0
0
www.stonerain.us
I picked Ubuntu as a desktop OS for an older machine, liked it so much I put it on one of my laptops as a dual boot. I've used TAILS and TinyCore linux on various devices just out of fun. So, it took about a day of browsing through distros/DE's to pick Ubuntu/Unity.

My new favorite is Chrome OS, though, it's preinstalled on my chromebook, and I must say the minimalism is appealing.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,981
8,219
126
I settled on Ubuntu very early on. I first discovered it in 2005, but couldn't run it as a full time O/S due to needing a modem, and I didn't want to buy a hardware unless I was sure Ubuntu would suit me. A hardware modem takes a big chunk out of the gratis price tag.

I'd occasionally try something different, but kept going back to Ubuntu. I started running it full time on my portables in 2008, and full time on everything in 2009.

Then Ubuntu started changing... New default colors, window decorations moving, Unity... I started to seriously look at Debian in 2010, and setup a test install of sid on a thumb drive to see how the updates were to manage. It turns out to be not too bad, but you have to pay attention. I had some updates that did exactly what they said they'd do, like remove the Gnome desktop. It removed it like a champ :^D I set it up again, and installed apt-listbugs so it was more manageable, and that worked fine; much easier to maintain.

2012 came around, and the upgrade to Ubuntu 12.04 was looming. I decided I'd in place upgrade, and give Unity one more chance, but I was leaning towards installing Debian. Well, I hosed my machine in late winter, so the choice came early, and I decided on Debian testing. Testing has worked out very well. I'm conservative by nature, and the updates are slightly fewer, so there's a little less chance of breakage. It's almost a close eyes, press update button situation, but not quite. apt-listbugs is still necessary, and care is still need when updating, but not as much as sid. Also, it's easier upgrading than downgrading, so testing works well for that.

I hear you saying, "Why Debian? You can change Ubuntu also". That's true, but it comes down to "why?". If I'm changing Ubuntu, what is it that makes Ubuntu, and when does it quit being Ubuntu? The changes kept getting greater, and it became apparent we had different visions of what an O/S should be. I could change Ubuntu, or I could start with Debian and make what I want. ppas in Ubuntu, or a rolling release with Debian. The rolling release won, and I like Debian's political philosophy. a default install will be 100% libre, but they don't make it excessively difficult to install proprietary software if desired. Debian is like a generic Ubuntu, and you build the Ubuntu you want.

I loved Gnome2, and still would if it existed, but I can't support the Gnome project anymore. Aside from Gnome shell, they're gutting features from their applications, and making it as "simple" as possible. Fewer options /can/ make things easier, but it usually makes them frustrating. They passed simple awhile ago, and things are frustrating now. I'm using Xfce which is a poor mans Gnome2, and it has some nice features of it's own. I like the look, and I like the project philosophy. They aren't interested in playing with theoretical interface trends. They make a classic desktop that works. No more, no less. I also play around with E17 and OpenBox, but neither is a primary desktop for me.

I still load different O/Ss in VMs just to see what everyone's doing, but I'm pretty happy with Debian. For other people I support I use Ubuntu derivatives on their machines due to things being easier from the start. I'm afraid I'll forget to install something necessary, and they'll hit a brick wall when they try to do something, and I won't be there to fix it. The *buntus are more turn key than Debian. I've used Ubuntu, Xubuntu, and Bodhi for other people. I also play around with micro distros, and use TinyCore, SliTaz, DSL, and Puppy. Full desktops that run in less than 100mb still make me smile.
 

MrColin

Platinum Member
May 21, 2003
2,403
3
81
I've been using linux here and there since 2006. I still haven't picked one.
 

Jodell88

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
8,762
30
91
I've used Ubuntu, OpenSuse, Fedora, Mandriva, and Arch Linux.

I haven't moved from Arch Linux though. :)
 

ControlD

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2005
5,440
44
91
I've used Ubuntu, OpenSuse, Fedora, Mandriva, and Arch Linux.

I haven't moved from Arch Linux though. :)

I keep telling myself to try an Arch Linux install but I have been so spoiled by modern installation routines. I remember installing Slackware back in 1994 and not thinking it was too bad, and that was basically without documentation. Somehow looking at an Arch installation today just intimidates me.
 

Jodell88

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
8,762
30
91
I keep telling myself to try an Arch Linux install but I have been so spoiled by modern installation routines. I remember installing Slackware back in 1994 and not thinking it was too bad, and that was basically without documentation. Somehow looking at an Arch installation today just intimidates me.
I know things have changed a bit from the last time I installed Arch but it really isn't difficult at all once you can follow instructions. I got a better understanding of how Linux works which was why I chose it in the first place. I can probably get Arch Linux installed in about a half hour.
 

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,511
149
106
I'm not sure if/what I had before Redhat Linux; it all started with having been given a preinstalled and centrally managed system for work. Then some Fedora Core. CentOS is less hassle.

fvwm first, now xfce. 'gpm' and 'cat' form a GUI editor ...
 

Shephard

Senior member
Nov 3, 2012
765
0
0
doesn't sound like these are reliable distro. you switch operating system all the time? why not secure and stable I assume.
 

ControlD

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2005
5,440
44
91
doesn't sound like these are reliable distro. you switch operating system all the time? why not secure and stable I assume.

I don't think that is generally the case, at least it isn't for me. Linux is free, and a lot of Linux users like tinkering around and trying new things. It doesn't cost anything to try a new distro and it takes very little time. My main operating system (Mint in my case) is more stable than either my Windows or OS X machines but with those operating systems I am pretty much locked into whatever I chose to pay for.
 

Jodell88

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
8,762
30
91
what exactly is trying new things?

They all look the same besides different uis.
There are differences under the hood as well. For years arch was known for the use of /etc/rc.conf for configuring your install.

Also, Mandriva for their control center. That was a work of art when I used Mandriva a couple years back.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
doesn't sound like these are reliable distro. you switch operating system all the time? why not secure and stable I assume.

We're not switching because of stability or security issues, we switch because we like choice and want to try the various flavors available.

Shephard said:
what exactly is trying new things?

They all look the same besides different uis.

It's actually more the opposite. Almost all use similar versions of Xorg for the actual X server and even though they have varying default desktop environments almost all of them provide the same alternatives (e.g. Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Enlightenment, etc) so the main differences are in the packaging and lower level details. Default apps and such are different too, but you can always add/remove whatever you want pretty easily.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,981
8,219
126
well if I try I am avoiding ubuntu because lxskllr said id tracks you.

The tracking bits are trivial to remove. I posted the article because I thought it was something people should know about. Not everyone follows GNU/Linux news, and everyone should go in educated so they can make a decision for themselves. If yoiu otherwise like Ubuntu, remove the shopping lens, and go on with life. You have that freedom.
 

TSDible

Golden Member
Nov 4, 1999
1,697
0
76
I'm not worried about the tracking bits... but then again, I use an ubuntu based distro that already has those things removed.

Like I said... Mint really has been my best experience so far.

I did a complete re-install including all updates the other day in less than 30 minutes...

I'm getting much more adept at setting up my custom stuff as well. I have to have a CAC reader for my work email... I've been able to get that working in Mint, Ubuntu, and LMDE. Every time I try a new distro, it gets a little easier.

It's been an interesting journey so far.

The coolest thing... I moved my windows install to Virtualbox and created an appliance that I can simply import as I hop between distributions. So far so good.

:)
 

Shephard

Senior member
Nov 3, 2012
765
0
0
so there's 3 different versions of this linux mint? I am guessing just ui differences? I mean they are all called mint... in Windows you can customize ui too you know.

also why not stick with one that gets updated for security?
 

TSDible

Golden Member
Nov 4, 1999
1,697
0
76
so there's 3 different versions of this linux mint? I am guessing just ui differences? I mean they are all called mint... in Windows you can customize ui too you know.

also why not stick with one that gets updated for security?

There are several different versions of Mint with different DE. But I would say that there are 3 versions of mint.

Mint
Mint with no proprietary software
Linux Mint Debian Edition

The first two are based of Ubuntu, and the last one is based of Debian. Those really are very different.

I hate to use car analogies...

But why doesn't everyone just buy a car that gets the best gas mileage, and painted in a color that has the lowest threat of being stolen? Nobody really needs different features in a car right? It just needs to get you from A to B.

Although the kernel of linux is the same at its core, different distributions may be taylored to a specific task. In my opinion, Mint is tasked at the easiest setup out of the box with full support for just about everything the average user would want to do. There are other distributions that specialize in data recovery, security testing, multimedia creation, education, the sciences, network storage, and the list goes on.

Some strive to be as small as possible creating a distribution that runs great on yesterday's hardware with today's security. Others build a system that includes all of the eyecandy and effects that you could ever want to have.

And before you ask... Yes. I can take any distribution and do any one of those things... I could build debian linux from the ground up with all of the features that I want. But somebody has already done that with 95% of what I'm looking for. Why should I start at 40%?

That is why I can get a Linux system to full productivity in less than 30 minutes. It takes me MUCH longer with Windows on exactly the same sytem.
 
Last edited:

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
so there's 3 different versions of this linux mint? I am guessing just ui differences? I mean they are all called mint... in Windows you can customize ui too you know.

also why not stick with one that gets updated for security?

They all get security updates for some amount of time and the UI in Linux is infinitely more flexible than the one in Windows. How about you stop nit picking from a distance and actually try it to see what the differences are?
 

ControlD

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2005
5,440
44
91
so there's 3 different versions of this linux mint? I am guessing just ui differences? I mean they are all called mint... in Windows you can customize ui too you know.

also why not stick with one that gets updated for security?

I think perhaps you are confused as to exactly what a Linux "distrobution" really is. There is probably an actual definition out there, but essentially a distrobution is the core files needed to boot the Linux operating system PLUS any extra packages that the distro maintainer wants included.

When you pick one of the Linux Mints for example, you are getting the core Linux operating system, plus the Mint exclusive applications such as their package manager. When you go one step further and choose a Mint built around a particular desktop environment (DE) then you are getting that DE PLUS a group of support applications built for that particular DE. So, if I install Mint KDE I will get an entirely different set of applications than I will if I install Mint MATE. At the same time any of the Mints will give me some of the same applications (Libre Office for example).

Their are other differences, because a DE handles much more than just the look and feel of the user interface. With KDE I get a different power manager, different muti-used display manager, different settings manager, etc. So, one reason to try different distrobutions even within the same "family" of Linux is to find one that not only looks the way you want but also contains applications and utilities that you like. So hopefully you can see why people like to try out different Linux distros. It has much less to do with stability and security and much more to do about the little extras that come along with a different distro.

And to echo Nothinman above, the only way you will truly understand is to try it out for yourself. Download and burn a Live CD version of a distro and boot it up. Play around with it. Maybe try another version with a different DE. Then things will probably make much more sense.
 
Last edited:

PCTC2

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2007
3,892
33
91
I settled down with Ubuntu back in 2007 after a year or so switching between distros. I ran 6.06 LTS, 7.04, and then 8.04 LTS until 2009. I was going to upgrade up to 10.04 LTS, but some of my server software back then was slower on the release cadence, and stuff wouldn't compile on 2.6.30+ easily without patches (and eventually wouldn't compile at all on 3.x kernels). I wanted a slower kernel update cadence (especially with some software needing to recompile every kernel point update, so even 2.6.32-XXX to 2.6.32-XXX+1 would require a recompile.

I eventually settled on CentOS/RHEL. I host my own CentOS mirror and Ubuntu mirror. The Ubuntu mirror is 100G... the CentOS mirror is 20G. I like still using GNOME2. It's like a security blanket. It feels like home to me. And more often than not, I find myself running a CentOS minimal install without X at all. The wide availability of server software in RPM format also swayed my choice.

Don't get me wrong. Ubuntu is okay, but it just moves too fast. If I really wanted bleeding-edge, I'd probably go Ubuntu or Fedora. But I don't. I've spent enough time patching drivers and software to compile on 2.6.32, let alone 3.X.

I've used Debian before, but I never liked their default install. For my laptops I've settle on CrunchBang (#!), which is debian based, but it is minimal to say the least. I'm a minimal kind of Linux user. My servers run without X. My hosts that I access via a KVM have X and GNOME2, but otherwise are rather minimal in terms of desktop software. My newer laptops run CentOS 6.4 now and my older Lenovo T61 runs CrunchBang.

I have a few clients that run Ubuntu. I still run and support 12.04 LTS for them. I have openSUSE on my workstation, along with LinuxMint on another workstation. I have virtual machines on my ESXi host of many base distributions and a bunch of forks (Debian, Ubuntu, CrunchBang, LinuxMint; RHEL, CentOS, ScientificLinux; openSUSE; and many others). I just try them all, but when it comes down to the end of the day, I run CentOS.

So TLDR:
Server: CentOS
Laptop: CrunchBang
Workstation: CentOS
 
Last edited:

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,382
5,347
146
I started with freeBSD because that was what I was introduced to, and got comfortable with.
After I became familiar with it I found out at that time ( showing my age :) ) that is did not have as robust a file system as was available in linux. I got my butt kicked by some untimely power outages. I dabbled with a few redhats, then went Debian pretty much from then on. I'll toss ubuntu on as well, but all my usage is CLI. I don't have any desktop environments going.