Looking to change Linux distros

[gszx1337]

I'm tired of Ubuntu. I'll list the reasons why below (in a relative order of most to least annoying). I'm thinking about moving over to openSUSE (since that's the other distro that I've had some experience with) or Fedora Core. What's holding me back from using those distros is that they use RPM-Package Managers. I like to use the site GetDeb.net quite a bit and IIRC, .deb is becoming the standard in Linux file formats.

Just about every other Linux distro that looks accessible that I've seen is based off of Ubuntu (ie. SuperOS and Linux Mint). I also read about Mandriva Linux and how it's cripple-ware. Sounds terrible. I'm also wanting to use a KDE distribution. I tried to use KUbuntu, but I never got it to work just right. It also sucks that it acts as a completely new OS instead of just Ubuntu with KDE desktop (like how openSUSE handled it when I was using it).

Here's what's bothering me about Ubuntu:

Dual Monitor support:I've never been able to get dual monitors to work right in (K)Ubuntu.(K)Ubuntutreats the two monitors like one big desktop, instead of two desktops like Windows does (and that's after PITA configuration). I'm not quite sure if there's a Linux distro that handles dual monitors any better since I haven't used any other distros with two monitors, but if there is, please let me know.

Flash Player: Yeah, I'm using the 64-bit version of Ubuntu. I'm not sure if it's any better on other distros, but if it is, I'll jump right on board.

MTP support: Why the hell is this still a problem? Is it my MP3 player (Creative Zen Vanilla)? I'm tired of using Gnomad2 because AFIAK, I can't arrange my MP3s.

Out of date repository: It's kind of frustrating to get an app from the software center (or Synaptic), have a problem with it, go to the forum(s), and find out that my version is out of date. Nexuiz is still 2.4.2 (current version is 2.5.2). It's irritating since the repositories are one of the strongest features of Linux.

It doesn't feel as snappy as it once did: It seems that with every new release, it just feels a little bit slower and this time, it's noticeable.

I would download a whole bunch of LiveCDs, but it'd take a long time to download, burn all of those disc images, and test them all out. I appreciate any and all help given to me.

Thank you all,
~gszx1337

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Use Windows. Linux simply doesn't compare on desktops. It's great for servers but not for desktops.

 

[Colt45]

Dual monitor problems are probably the fact that your config is wrong. I like how I have it better than how windows does it (fe, a task bar on each monitor). I'm not even sure what you're getting at here, actually.

flashplugin-nonfree works fine for me on deb.

Repositories for stable branches are always going to be "out of date". That's why they're stable. If you want bleeding edge, run a testing branch. But it will probably cause more problems than it's worth. You're free to compile or find backports of a newer version if it matters.

I have no idea WTF MTP is.

I tried to use KUbuntu, but I never got it to work just right. It also sucks that it acts as a completely new OS instead of just Ubuntu with KDE desktop (like how openSUSE handled it when I was using it).

Never used it, but I can't really see that, but maybe. Why don't you just install KDE on normal ubuntu anyway..?

 

[sourceninja]

I doubt you will find the solutions you seek in other distros. X windows is still x windows, flash is still flash, etc.

 

[n0cmonkey]

MTP is something like Media Transfer Protocol. The mp3 player won't show up as a disk to copy files to, you actually have to use some program to get the files onto it. I'd get a new mp3 player myself.

 

[xSauronx]

MTP is something like Media Transfer Protocol. The mp3 player won't show up as a disk to copy files to, you actually have to use some program to get the files onto it. I'd get a new mp3 player myself.

there is support for this in linux. i never had a problem with rhythmbox and an mtp player i had (i think a creative zen stone). google around. i think you have to install a package or something, but i know it will work in rhythmbox.

 

[LuckyTaxi]

i run both fedora and ubuntu. I couldn't get Ubuntu to play nice w/ my dual monitor setup. It was a pain in the a$$. Fedora worked out of the box and I love it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

i run both fedora and ubuntu. I couldn't get Ubuntu to play nice w/ my dual monitor setup. It was a pain in the a$$. Fedora worked out of the box and I love it.

I recently installed UbuntuStudio to do some music recording, and connected two monitors of different resolutions. A little tinkering in nvidia-settings and they both worked perfectly. I run them as two different X-sessions so there's no dragging windows from one to the other -- instead it just wraps around to the next face on the desktop cube for each monitor. <3 compiz.

 

[Platypus]

Could you explain more clearly what functionality you're looking for with dual monitor support? If you've got an nvidia card, their binary drivers have an extremely customizable tool for configuring different resolutions, gamma/color, etc. Furthermore, this is a function of X and not distribution specific.

Your other points have been hit pretty well

 

[Gamingphreek]

I'm tired of Ubuntu. I'll list the reasons why below (in a relative order of most to least annoying). I'm thinking about moving over to openSUSE (since that's the other distro that I've had some experience with) or Fedora Core. What's holding me back from using those distros is that they use RPM-Package Managers. I like to use the site GetDeb.net quite a bit and IIRC, .deb is becoming the standard in Linux file formats.

Just about every other Linux distro that looks accessible that I've seen is based off of Ubuntu (ie. SuperOS and Linux Mint). I also read about Mandriva Linux and how it's cripple-ware. Sounds terrible. I'm also wanting to use a KDE distribution. I tried to use KUbuntu, but I never got it to work just right. It also sucks that it acts as a completely new OS instead of just Ubuntu with KDE desktop (like how openSUSE handled it when I was using it).

Here's what's bothering me about Ubuntu:

Dual Monitor support:I've never been able to get dual monitors to work right in (K)Ubuntu.(K)Ubuntutreats the two monitors like one big desktop, instead of two desktops like Windows does (and that's after PITA configuration). I'm not quite sure if there's a Linux distro that handles dual monitors any better since I haven't used any other distros with two monitors, but if there is, please let me know.

You must have configured it wrong. There are 2 ways to do this:
1. GUI under Display Properties got a lot better 9.04 I believe
2. 'gksudo gedit /etc/X11/xorg.conf' and create a virtual panel that is the size of the sum of each monitors resolution.

Flash Player: Yeah, I'm using the 64-bit version of Ubuntu. I'm not sure if it's any better on other distros, but if it is, I'll jump right on board.

Sorry bud, this has nothing to do with Ubuntu. This is Linux in general. If it is that big of a deal, you should dual boot. You can also try installing the 64bit version of flash. [Link]http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/install-flash-10-ubuntu-linux-64bit.html[/Link]

MTP support: Why the hell is this still a problem? Is it my MP3 player (Creative Zen Vanilla)? I'm tired of using Gnomad2 because AFIAK, I can't arrange my MP3s.

I have never used an MTP device; however, Rhythmbox has always handled all my devices very smoothly with no setup.

Out of date repository: It's kind of frustrating to get an app from the software center (or Synaptic), have a problem with it, go to the forum(s), and find out that my version is out of date. Nexuiz is still 2.4.2 (current version is 2.5.2). It's irritating since the repositories are one of the strongest features of Linux.

If you are that concerned about the software why are you not adding additional ppa and launchpad repositories? I have a 3rd party repository for Cairo-Dock, Pidgin, my Ubuntu Theme, Virtualbox, Thunderbird, Firefox, Chrome (etc...).

It doesn't feel as snappy as it once did: It seems that with every new release, it just feels a little bit slower and this time, it's noticeable.

I don't know what to say about that man. Ubuntu has gotten a little more bloated with each subsequent release (IMO); however, I still find it quite snappy (Though closed source ATI drivers, and almost any Intel drivers aren't the greatest).

I would download a whole bunch of LiveCDs, but it'd take a long time to download, burn all of those disc images, and test them all out. I appreciate any and all help given to me.

Thank you all,
~gszx1337

Based on what you said, perhaps I am wrong (If so I apologize), but you don't seem extremely confident in a Linux based environment as these are all fairly basic problems to resolve.

You can try Debian, though you will run into some of these same issues save for the last bullet as Debian doesn't come with as much preinstalled.

openSUSE isn't bad, but I didn't care for it personally. I found it more bloated than Ubuntu.

Fedora is nice if you want bleeding edge software. It is essentially a beta version of an upcoming Red Hat release. The 'yum' package manager, at least in my experience, is really terrible and slow. Additionally, even more so than openSUSE, Fedora requires more skill in the *nix environment.

Check out these links for more suggestions:
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/index.php?lang=en
www.distrowatch.com

-Kevin

 

[Nothinman]

Use Windows. Linux simply doesn't compare on desktops. It's great for servers but not for desktops.

My desktops at home and work would beg to differ.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

My desktops at home and work would beg to differ.

What makes them different from my desktops? I just built a CentOS server that has roaming profiles, shared folders with proper permissions, and provides the .POL file that the Windows clients load at login and it works great. It and my mail server work great becuase Linux is great for servers. On the other hand, it works terribly on the desktop. It's slow, clunky, buggy, and overall a pain to use.

 

[Nothinman]

What makes them different from my desktops? I just built a CentOS server that has roaming profiles, shared folders with proper permissions, and provides the .POL file that the Windows clients load at login and it works great. It and my mail server work great becuase Linux is great for servers. On the other hand, it works terribly on the desktop. It's slow, clunky, buggy, and overall a pain to use.

My desktops differ from yours because they run Debian, have for years and will for the foreseeable future. Windows has the edge in game support, but eveything else works better than Windows for me.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

My desktops differ from yours because they run Debian, have for years and will for the foreseeable future. Windows has the edge in game support, but eveything else works better than Windows for me.

How does that change anything? Either you are using very outdated but stable software or you are on the newest but unstable releases.

 

[Nothinman]

How does that change anything? Either you are using very outdated but stable software or you are on the newest but unstable releases.

I'm running Debian unstable but, despite the name, the software itself isn't unstable. The machine I'm typing this on has been up for 248 days now.

Although I don't see how that's relevant, neither you or the OP mentioned stability or package age as an issue.

 

[Gamingphreek]

WaitingForNehalem - What Distro are you basing this claim off of that Linux isn't good for desktops. Outside of gaming, you are flat out wrong. You can claim that in your experience they aren't as good as Windows (opinion), but to say they are not good in general is ludicrous.

If you are using CentOS for you claim, then you need to use a different distro. Using CentOS for a Linux Desktop is not a good idea. The software is very out of date (for good reason admittedly).

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

WaitingForNehalem - What Distro are you basing this claim off of that Linux isn't good for desktops. Outside of gaming, you are flat out wrong. You can claim that in your experience they aren't as good as Windows (opinion), but to say they are not good in general is ludicrous.

If you are using CentOS for you claim, then you need to use a different distro. Using CentOS for a Linux Desktop is not a good idea. The software is very out of date (for good reason admittedly).

I said I built a CentOS server. Which distro I use has nothing to do with it. Linux itself just works terribly on the desktop. The GUI always seems to be an afterthought. For servers, I don't mind using CLI, but it's rediculous on the desktop. Repositories are also one of the worst ideas. Either you get a broken package or outdated software. If you want to install software from a website you better hope it's a .rpm or .deb specifically for your distro, otherwise you have to compile it yourself. It's also slow and clunky and if you don't believe me then believe the creator of the linux kernel, Linus Torvalds http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/. The file heiarchy is completely unfit for the desktop. Software is installed all over the place which in turn requires a package manager. Mac OSX and Gobo linux place system links to remedy this problem which I suppose is a better solution. PC-BSD devs seem to know what to do as their .pbi solution is very similar to an .exe and it makes installing software a breeze.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Now, I'm not saying linux is useless on the desktop as that is not true. It is free OS that I am thankful to have around. It does work well for a lot of people. For me though, it doesn't compare to Windows.

 

[Gamingphreek]

The GUI always seems to be an afterthought.

So switch to another one? You get to pick between any display manager you want. If you don't like Gnome, try KDE! I don't know what you mean by "after-thought". I've never noticed anything glaring about it.

For servers, I don't mind using CLI, but it's rediculous on the desktop.

The CLI is the most powerful tool on the desktop - what is the big deal with it? Not to mention, sub-distros like Linux Mint have minimal CLI usage in the first place (I would never use that though).

Repositories are also one of the worst ideas. Either you get a broken package or outdated software.

Where are you getting these ideas from!?! I have never encountered a broken package in the Ubuntu/Debian repositories. In my limited use of Fedora's repositories, I hadn't had a problem there either.

As for outdated software, why are you depending on the default repositories. The power of the repositories is that you can add 3rd party PPA/Launchpad repositories to your sources list.

If you want to install software from a website you better hope it's a .rpm or .deb specifically for your distro, otherwise you have to compile it yourself.

It is rare that I have had to compile software from source. Have you looked to try and find a repository or .deb/.rpm for it? Gentoo is the only distro I have heard of where source compilation was an absolute necessity.

It's also slow and clunky and if you don't believe me then believe the creator of the linux kernel, Linus Torvalds http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09..._bloated_huge/.

It's the Kernel. Why do you really care whether or not there are too many drivers in there. If you care so much, use a customized version and make it tiny.

Also, unless I am mistaken, those comments were made after an EXT4 regression was fixed which required a HUGE increase in Kernel code.

The file heiarchy is completely unfit for the desktop. Software is installed all over the place which in turn requires a package manager.

Really?? /home contains all of the personal settings for programs. /usr/local and /usr/share contain programs themselves. What is confusing about this?

Windows has Program Files, Program Files(x86), Users/[username]/...., Program Data.... they're arguably more scattered than Linux.

Honestly, you set up a CentOS server, but have you looked into anything about Linux. You can make arguments that you just plain don't like it, or that it is less user friendly than Windows, but a lot of these claims are just ridiculous (note: not rediculous )

-Kevin

 

[Nothinman]

For servers, I don't mind using CLI, but it's rediculous on the desktop.

Why? I tend to use the cli for lots of things on my desktop, but only where it makes sense. I also have a GUI for things where it makes sense like web browsers, image editors, video players, etc.

Repositories are also one of the worst ideas. Either you get a broken package or outdated software.

No, they're one of the best ideas ever. Everything is maintained in one central location. And calling the packages either broken or old is pure hyperbole.

If you want to install software from a website you better hope it's a .rpm or .deb specifically for your distro, otherwise you have to compile it yourself.

The only stuff I have installed that's not direct from Debian is VMware and a few Windows games. I can't remember the last time I even wanted to install something else that wasn't in Debians repositories.

It's also slow and clunky and if you don't believe me then believe the creator of the linux kernel, Linus Torvalds http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09..._bloated_huge/.

That's not really applicable because he's talking about the kernel. Which also means that your CentOS server is bloated and slow since it's running the same kernel.

The file heiarchy is completely unfit for the desktop. Software is installed all over the place which in turn requires a package manager.

How does a logical hierarchy for files not apply to a desktop? And more importantly, who cares where things get installed? I install a package and I get a menu entry to start that app, why should I care where the binary is located?

And package managers are why we don't have remnants of uninstalled programs floating around the system like you get with Windows and why I can update virtually everything I have installed with one app.

Mac OSX and Gobo linux place system links to remedy this problem which I suppose is a better solution. PC-BSD devs seem to know what to do as their .pbi solution is very similar to an .exe and it makes installing software a breeze.

Gobo is trying to fix something that isn't a problem and OS X would be good to adopt a real package manager. The "file that's really a directory containing everything this app needs" thing is nice for portability but means the end user has to maintain all of it, which is rediculous. Since there's no central package manager it's up to either the app itself to check for updates or the end user, which is retarded. And I'd assume most of those apps either include or statically link libraries they use like openssl and such which means you've got an unknown number of copies of who knows what version of various libraries. Good luck making sure they're all up to date.

From a pure software management perspective nothing can compare to a package manager with a good repository or two.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Using Ubuntu 9.10, I got a broken package and it was a kernel update. I've used tons of distros including Mint. OpenSUSE was great but it had problems installing programs from its default repositories. I probably will use CentOS as a desktop since that's what it takes to have a solid OS. I might also use Ubuntu 8.04LTS. I've used KDE, GNOME, XFCE, Fluxbox, Openbox, and pure CLI. Actually applications can be stored in usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /., /usr/share, /usr/local, /lib. In Windows you have Program Files (how logical) for 64bit and Program Files (x86) for 32bit. Obviously the kernel matters, not sure how you could say it doesn't.

 

[Colt45]

Actually applications can be stored in usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /., /usr/share, /usr/local, /lib. In Windows you have Program Files (how logical) for 64bit and Program Files (x86) for 32bit.

/bin /sbin are like /WINDOWS or /WINNT and /System32, etc.
/usr/bin is user programs, like program files.
/lib is libraries, like /WINDOWS/DLL or other DLLs randomly strewn about.
/usr/lib is like DLL's in random places in program files

config is in /etc/ or ~/.<appname>, which beats them being in
documents and settings/allusers/somewhere
documents and settings/ username /somewhere_in_here
or in the registry.

unix system seems a lot more logical to me.

 

[Nothinman]

Using Ubuntu 9.10, I got a broken package and it was a kernel update.

So? Sure that sucks, but patches in other OSes cause problems regularly too. Software and QA will never be perfect and screaming "OMG package managers are dumb!!!" because of one bad update is just plain ignorant.

Actually applications can be stored in usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /., /usr/share, /usr/local, /lib. In Windows you have Program Files (how logical) for 64bit and Program Files (x86) for 32bit.

So? Why do you care where the application is stored? I don't get this fascination you seem to have with micromanaging your system. You should be worrying about your data and whether or not the application works, not where it's icon is stored.

There's no way you can argue the Windows method is more logical. Just look on your 64-bit Windows system, the system32 directory is full of 64-bit binaries. Now that's logic! And on top of that they're just dumped right into the root of that directory with no consideration for organization at all. Is your house just one big room with everything randomly strewn about?

Obviously the kernel matters, not sure how you could say it doesn't.

Obviously, but nowhere near to the extent that you're implying. It's all relative. When kernel people talk about bloat and slowdown they're usually speaking in terms of bytes and milliseconds or clock cycles. Do you really think that if you install 2.6.20 you're going to see a huge performance increase because it's less bloated than 2.6.30? And most of the "bloat" is modular and not loaded unless you're using it so the only real waste is in disk space.

 

[MrColin]

I've politely refrained from discussing my opinion on Ubuntu 9.10 Desktop edition on public forums. I love Ubuntu and wholeheartedly recommend 9.04 to anyone for a desktop OS. Karmic is great for the server. People overestimate the hassle of compiling packages in order to get the latest version of a particular program. Debian/Ubuntu have excellent support for this and you can use "checkinstall -D --install=no" to build a deb package at the end, instead of doing "make install" and pray that it both works and will uninstall cleanly if needed. I had a go at building rps on SUSE once and holy cow, don't even get me started on what a PITA they make it into.

I had CENTOS 5 server running for about six months before it spontaneously failed on me, and I was a bit put off by having to learn multiple scripting languages just to keep SELinux turned on. The repositories were slow and threatened to install conflicting packages. I'm sure it would have been great though. The lack of thorough code reviews in other distros makes me a little nervous.

To the OP, SUSE might work for you but its dog-slow, all the problems you mentioned AFAICT are easier to deal with on Ubuntu than any other distro, the exception being that certain hardware vendors only offer rpm packed drivers.