• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Linux Rolling Over In Its Grave?

V

vois2

Banned
OK, so after years of Windows products, I decided to grab a new machine and have it dual-boot: Vista, and, a linux distro.

I'm new to linux, so I started researching regarding which linux desktop distribution would be right for me. (Of the 350+ unique distributions, overall.)

What I have read has been disappointing. It seems that these desktop distributions are leaning towards bloated, fancy GUIs. (Xgl, Compiz, KDE, etc.)

This I was hoping to mostly avoid. Am I a decade too late?

Is there a desktop distribution for the Advanced Joe who wants to tinker with linux without all the fluff? For absolute Windows conforming, there seems to be Xandros 4.0 Premium, but it operates so closely with NTFS and Windows apps that I would wonder why I would switch from Windows at all.

Thanks in advance.





 
Vista + Linux = no no

I dont think you can dual boot them. I tried, and I majorly regret it...I couldn't boot into it due to it's weird protection. And now I'm reinstalling Vista...woo.

Just don't try it.
 
Nobody's making you install XGL and Compiz over XOrg 6.9 and [insert favorite window manager]. It's just that if someone wants the fluff, it's available.

If you want to find the best distro for you, you need to elaborate on what you mean by "desktop distribution".
 
Sounds to me like you are looking for Gentoo Linux and something like fluxbox for a window manager.

Desktops only have to be fancy in Linux if you want them to be. You can make it look like anything.
 
Linux is about choice. People like the fancy graphics. Also another thing about XGL that people fail to notice is that eventually it will provide a much more efficient utilization of your computer's resources... It's just about eye candy right now because people are trying to sell it, but it's about taking advantage of your hardware.

For instance a big advantage would be allowing you to use memory in your graphic cards much better then it is now.. part of developments around XGL is that they are introducing intellegent memory management for video cards into DRI drivers.

But you don't want it then you don't need it.

Right now the push for Linux-on-the-desktop is in both directions.. you have a big push towards the high end, but you also have a big push towards the low end.

Nokia and friends are working on optimizing Linux and graphical libraries for embedded work in things like mobile phones and other handheld devices..

It's one of those 'convergance' things.. As handhelds gain more and more power they are becoming more PC-like. Developers with Linux and QT/GTK graphical libraries are trying to make them more efficient and optimize CPU and Memory usage. So eventually in another year or so they are going to meet together and hopefully your going to start seeing some realy cool items.

And of course this effort leads to faster and leaner desktops. Gnome 2.16 is going to be faster then Gnome 2.12.

And if you don't want a full fledged desktop environment and want to concentrate on basic usability and customizability there are very nice systems for this. Most distros have them, they just are installed by default.

Start off with XFCE.. http://www.xfce.org/
"Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems.
Designed for productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while conserving system resources." - Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce
Click to expand...

Their release of XFCE 4.4 beta is something that I like.

Also Fluxbox is very popular.

Generally you just install them via your operating system's package management system, then select it out of the 'session' selection in your graphical login. Gnome and/or KDE is nice to have installed because they have lots of nice programs, but when your not using them they are not taking up resources except disk space.
 
Originally posted by: hans030390
Vista + Linux = no no

I dont think you can dual boot them. I tried, and I majorly regret it...I couldn't boot into it due to it's weird protection. And now I'm reinstalling Vista...woo.

Just don't try it.
Click to expand...


There are no problems booting Linux and Vista.

1. Install Vista and have it operational.
2. Install Linux ( Suse 10.1 in my case ) and let Grub install on the MBR.

Have fun.

pcgeek11
 
Originally posted by: pcgeek11
Originally posted by: hans030390
Vista + Linux = no no

I dont think you can dual boot them. I tried, and I majorly regret it...I couldn't boot into it due to it's weird protection. And now I'm reinstalling Vista...woo.

Just don't try it.
Click to expand...


There are no problems booting Linux and Vista.

1. Install Vista and have it operational.
2. Install Linux ( Suse 10.1 in my case ) and let Grub install on the MBR.

Have fun.

pcgeek11
Click to expand...

Thats how I would do it also.
 
Originally posted by: pcgeek11
Originally posted by: hans030390
Vista + Linux = no no

I dont think you can dual boot them. I tried, and I majorly regret it...I couldn't boot into it due to it's weird protection. And now I'm reinstalling Vista...woo.

Just don't try it.
Click to expand...


There are no problems booting Linux and Vista.

1. Install Vista and have it operational.
2. Install Linux ( Suse 10.1 in my case ) and let Grub install on the MBR.

Have fun.

pcgeek11
Click to expand...

Have you personally tried it? I have. It doesn't work. Grub does not recognize Vista due to its Bitlocker drive encryption.
 
Originally posted by: vois2
OK, so after years of Windows products, I decided to grab a new machine and have it dual-boot: Vista, and, a linux distro.

I'm new to linux, so I started researching regarding which linux desktop distribution would be right for me. (Of the 350+ unique distributions, overall.)

What I have read has been disappointing. It seems that these desktop distributions are leaning towards bloated, fancy GUIs. (Xgl, Compiz, KDE, etc.)

This I was hoping to mostly avoid. Am I a decade too late?

Is there a desktop distribution for the Advanced Joe who wants to tinker with linux without all the fluff? For absolute Windows conforming, there seems to be Xandros 4.0 Premium, but it operates so closely with NTFS and Windows apps that I would wonder why I would switch from Windows at all.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

1) XGL + Compiz are not bloated. I was able to run it on an old integrated Intel video card. Any card with some sort of 3d acceleration should be able to run it fine (they might not be able to run every feature though like the rippling water).

2) Not every distro is leaning towards XGL + Compiz. I'm running Suse and I didn't enable it even though I could do so easily. Turning off/on XGL + Compiz just involves clicking a button so you don't have to search everywhere to disable all the eye candy. And there's only one distro I know of that enables it by default right now (Kororaa XGL LiveCD). Not even SLED does that.
 
What exactly are you looking for in a desktop? If you are looking for speed, Xubuntu is ubuntu with the xfce desktop environment; faster and leaner than Gnome. If all you're looking for is a simple, clean looking gui, then gnome may work for you.
 
What exactly are you looking for in a desktop?

If all you're looking for is a simple, clean looking gui, then Gnome may work for you. It's installed by default with Ubuntu. It is very easy to configure, and ubuntu is a good learning distro. The support community is fantastic.

If you are looking for speed, Xubuntu is ubuntu with the xfce desktop environment; faster and leaner than Gnome.

Both versions have live install cds, so you can try them out before you install them to your harddrive.
 
I am going to highly recommend against using Gentoo Linux. Since you are a novice, start with OpenSuse or Fedora. Ubuntu is my current distribution of choice, but it lacks some control panels that make windows users more at ease. Good luck
 
Thanks to everyone for their insight. I appreciate especially the comments/experience on configurability through the modular nature of Linux.

I was able tonight to get a dual boot running on my machine for Vista Beta 2 build 5384 and Ubuntu v6.06 ('Dapper Drake') Linux desktop. I'm looking forward to learning and playing!
 
Sorry to nitpick, but the "rolling over in it's grave" expression is usually only used in reference to something that's dead and gone.
Anyway, I think ubuntu should analyze your hardware and suggest a gui (and possibly software apps) to the user. There shouldn't be a need for a seperate ubuntu and xubuntu.
 
Originally posted by: Evander
Anyway, I think ubuntu should analyze your hardware and suggest a gui (and possibly software apps) to the user. There shouldn't be a need for a seperate ubuntu and xubuntu.
Click to expand...
There isn't a "need" for a "separate" Ubuntu and Xubuntu. Kubuntu and Xubuntu are just prepackaged ISOs that ship with a different default GUI. You can install Ubuntu (default Gnome) and install XFCE, KDE, or whatever afterwards.
 
There isn't a "need" for a "separate" Ubuntu and Xubuntu. Kubuntu and Xubuntu are just prepackaged ISOs that ship with a different default GUI. You can install Ubuntu (default Gnome) and install XFCE, KDE, or whatever afterwards.

It would be much, much better if it was transparent to the user. A curious person might have heard about this new "linux ubuntu thing", and maybe go straight to the default ubuntu only to find it's sluggish on their system (with older hardware). And maybe then give up on linux, and maybe pass the word unto a friend that's thinking about it to not bother.

I'm a linux newbie, don't want it installed on my P4 desktop yet, but think it may be good for my laptop (p3 800/128MB). The liveCD runs godawful slow on that, but the xubuntu live cd works decently. One shouldn't have to search for a lightweighter distro if they don't have to (someone will say "just install such and such theme, but a newbie (like me) wouldn't yet know how to do this. just make a good first impression that will make people come back for more).

 
Originally posted by: Evander
There isn't a "need" for a "separate" Ubuntu and Xubuntu. Kubuntu and Xubuntu are just prepackaged ISOs that ship with a different default GUI. You can install Ubuntu (default Gnome) and install XFCE, KDE, or whatever afterwards.

It would be much, much better if it was transparent to the user. A curious person might have heard about this new "linux ubuntu thing", and maybe go straight to the default ubuntu only to find it's sluggish on their system (with older hardware). And maybe then give up on linux, and maybe pass the word unto a friend that's thinking about it to not bother.

I'm a linux newbie, don't want it installed on my P4 desktop yet, but think it may be good for my laptop (p3 800/128MB). The liveCD runs godawful slow on that, but the xubuntu live cd works decently. One shouldn't have to search for a lightweighter distro if they don't have to (someone will say "just install such and such theme, but a newbie (like me) wouldn't yet know how to do this. just make a good first impression that will make people come back for more).
Click to expand...

Dynamically setting the eyecandy settings(XGL, AA, fading menus, etc etc) depending on hardware spec is a good thing.
Dynamically setting the entire desktop environment is a bad thing, especially for a distro that aims to "just work".
 
The liveCD runs godawful slow on that, but the xubuntu live cd works decently. One shouldn't have to search for a lightweighter distro if they don't have to (someone will say "just install such and such theme, but a newbie (like me) wouldn't yet know how to do this. just make a good first impression that will make people come back for more).
Click to expand...

KDE, Gnome and XFCE aren't themes, putting them all on the same CD probably wouldn't work because of the space required.
 
Originally posted by: Evander
I'm a linux newbie, don't want it installed on my P4 desktop yet, but think it may be good for my laptop (p3 800/128MB). The liveCD runs godawful slow on that, but the xubuntu live cd works decently. One shouldn't have to search for a lightweighter distro if they don't have to (someone will say "just install such and such theme, but a newbie (like me) wouldn't yet know how to do this. just make a good first impression that will make people come back for more).
Click to expand...

Livecd's run inherently slower then if you install on the harddrive. This is becuase they utilize a lot more RAM to replicate a read/write file system on top of the read-only cdrom, and the cdroms are much slower then harddrives.

It's been my personal experiance that either full KDE or Gnome will run acceptably on a machine of that sort. Of course this impression depends heavily on your expectations and how you multitask and such. Big flash animations are going to hit it like a ton of bricks and it's not going to be able to handle high resolution media files.

Of course adding more RAM (to 256 or 512) and/or using a more lightweight environment like XFCE or Fluxbox will make things much snappier.
 
Dynamically setting the entire desktop environment is a bad thing, especially for a distro that aims to "just work".
Click to expand...

But on specs like I posted ubuntu live doesn't just work, it's virtually unusable.
Though I admit I don't know the under the hood details with the ubuntu and xubuntu environments. I assumed everything would be pretty much the same (menus and placement of things) but I could be wrong. But if I were right and it's nearly the same minus some special effects, I see nothing wrong with letting the OS determine the appropriate environment automatically
 
But if I were right and it's nearly the same minus some special effects, I see nothing wrong with letting the OS determine the appropriate environment automatically
Click to expand...

But you're not, XFCE and Gnome aren't the same thing. XFCE uses GTK2 for it's widgets but that's all they have in common AFAIK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top