What Linux distribution would you install right now?

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Crusty

So little screen space! I'm wishing I had 4x 20" monitors like some of the traders here have

4*20" screens don't fit in your cargo pocket though ;^)

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: Crusty

So little screen space! I'm wishing I had 4x 20" monitors like some of the traders here have

4*20" screens don't fit in your cargo pocket though ;^)

Haha so true! What's funny though is that I don't think I've ever owned a pair of cargo pants :Q... besides, I always have bag with me to put my laptop in!

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: xSauronx
jeebus dude, i have a 1000h and the size is pushing it for casual use. that 701 would drive me nuts

Yeah, it's all right for some things, but not all. 10" would be much better, but they weren't around when I got this.

So little screen space! I'm wishing I had 4x 20" monitors like some of the traders here have

i have a desktop with a large lcd, but moving around the eee is much easier than the t60 i need to get rid of. granted, the t60 has a 14" 1400x1050 lcd which ive really enjoyed

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: xSauronx
jeebus dude, i have a 1000h and the size is pushing it for casual use. that 701 would drive me nuts

Yeah, it's all right for some things, but not all. 10" would be much better, but they weren't around when I got this.

So little screen space! I'm wishing I had 4x 20" monitors like some of the traders here have

i have a desktop with a large lcd, but moving around the eee is much easier than the t60 i need to get rid of. granted, the t60 has a 14" 1400x1050 lcd which ive really enjoyed

I've got an Inspiron 1525 with similar screen specs and like the space a lot, but I do agree that netbooks are a lot easier to carry around

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: xSauronx
jeebus dude, i have a 1000h and the size is pushing it for casual use. that 701 would drive me nuts

Yeah, it's all right for some things, but not all. 10" would be much better, but they weren't around when I got this.

So little screen space! I'm wishing I had 4x 20" monitors like some of the traders here have

i have a desktop with a large lcd, but moving around the eee is much easier than the t60 i need to get rid of. granted, the t60 has a 14" 1400x1050 lcd which ive really enjoyed

I love my 15" T60, It's an excellent work and fun machine, I have had it since it was released back in 2006.
I use my T60 as a main machine. At home I have a 22" LCD setup with a dock so life is easy and all.

Now dragging along the T60 everyday is not a huge task by far, none the less, I would love to make it easier on myself.

I am considering the idea of selling my T60 and getting me either an X200 or an X61 ThinkPad.

The X200 is an amazing machine, the performance in both processor and graphics power blows away my poor 945GMA Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz T60.

The X200 has nearly the same full sized keyboard as the T60 does, which is a big PLUS, the X61 has a smaller keyboard.

HOWEVER, the X200's screen sucks when compared to the awesomeness of the X61's screen!

I am torn in the middle in between the X200 and the X61 I don't know what to do

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: lakedude

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: lakedude

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: lakedude

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Since I prefer KDE to Gnome I'd install Kubuntu over Ubuntu. Kubuntu being Ubuntu with the KDE desktop in place of Gnome.

What's wrong with installing Ubuntu and then installing the KDE pseudo-package?

Why would you do that? If you prefer Gnome then DL Ubuntu and you are done. If you prefer KDE DL Kubuntu and you are done. Why make it a complicated multi step process?

Is it really that complicated with Ubuntu? I've switched back and forth between gnome and kde several times in fedora, it was pretty easy.

Is downloading Kubuntu that complicated?

I used Kubuntu with a wireless system. One of the reasons for choosing Kubuntu was that the wireless worked right out of the box, not so with Ubuntu. So yes for me it would have been complicated to start with Ubuntu because Ubuntu didn't work with my hardware. I would have had to troubleshoot Ubuntu (either by using a second system or by relocating the wireless system closer to the router and running a wire). Why bother with all that when Kubuntu worked perfect straight out of the box?

Why on earth would you want to redownload the entire operating system to switch from KDE to Gnome or vice versa?

You wouldn't. My suggestion was to choose between KDE and Gnome first, then DL a distro. Someone else suggested switching back and forth. I like KDE so for my taste Ubuntu don't cut it. I tried it anyway just because it is the most popular distro. Didn't like it (cause it didn't work and was slow). OTOH Kubuntu did work.

I downloaded at least a dozen distros in advance before ever trying one. Loaded em all up just to see. I ended up with Puppy, Sabayon and Kubuntu as my favorites.

Naturally a Gnome fan would prefer Ubuntu to Kubuntu so naturally a Gnome fan would DL Ubuntu not Kubuntu.

If you already have Ubuntu working it would of course be a smaller DL to just add KDE. In my case I already had both downloaded so it was pretty easy to pop in the next disk...

You're assuming the person has prior exposure to both KDE and Gnome and can actually make that decision. When I first starting using Linux it took me over a year to finally decide I liked Gnome more then KDE, and that was after experimenting with lots of other WM's like *box, XFCE, Enlightenment.. etc.

If I had to download a new distro every time i wanted to try out a new WM back then I would never have continued to use Linux.

No, you're the one who's incorrectly assuming. Read what you're quoting, and maybe you'll understand:

Since I prefer KDE to Gnome I'd install Kubuntu over Ubuntu. Kubuntu being Ubuntu with the KDE desktop in place of Gnome.

Which part of lakedude's statement there was hard to understand? I also saw nothing in either of those two sentences where he recommends anyone should uninstall any distro. Would you mind pointing that out for me?

 

[lakedude]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: lakedude
A small light distro like Puppy, DSL, anti X, or tiny ME is the only way to go on an older slower system.

I am looking to run *nix on a garage only laptop. It's a Armada M700 with a PIII 850e mobile processor. Currently 128MB but I am looking to push it to 320MB at least and hopefully 512MB (hard to find the right low profile 256MB PC133 SoDIMMS).

The functions are going to be serving PDF's, web browsing, and MP3 music playback via the headphone out to RCA's feeding into a receiver.

Ubuntu is nice, but designed for modern machines with modern features.

Anyone know a decent option for me and place to download? I have an XP SP2 license (and a Windows 2000 one as well) but I just don't think a PIII 850 will run these that well...esp the latest browsers that are gobbling up system ram.

I used to run slackware on some old IBM PS/2 systems back in the 90's but since I have had high powered machines and my job requires me to support microsoft.

Thanks

I can really only speak for Puppy since it is the only lite distro I use regularly.

Puppy includes Multimedia (MP3), Internet (Connection Wizard / Seamonkey Browser), and Networking (servers and clients) out of the box. Puppy also has a package manager so even is something you wanted was missing you could add it later.

Puppy is small and can run completely in RAM (if you have enough RAM) making it very. very fast. As is (128MB) your system is borderline for running Puppy in RAM. I'm sure an upgrade to 256MB would allow Puppy to run from RAM.

Since Puppy is only 100MB complete it is very quick and easy to download and check out. Debian's installer is over 100MB and then you would need to finish installing via the internet. Can't say for sure but me thinks Puppy would be a faster and easier way to go.

Puppy just came out with version 4.2! Check it out:

http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=05400

Screen:

http://img403.imageshack.us/im...801/puppy42newlook.png

 

[dennilfloss]

Kiwi or Mint.

 

[lxskllr]

I'm always amazed at how polished Puppy is for the size. It looks and performs bigger than it's footprint would indicate.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: lakedude

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: lakedude

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: lakedude

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Since I prefer KDE to Gnome I'd install Kubuntu over Ubuntu. Kubuntu being Ubuntu with the KDE desktop in place of Gnome.

What's wrong with installing Ubuntu and then installing the KDE pseudo-package?

Why would you do that? If you prefer Gnome then DL Ubuntu and you are done. If you prefer KDE DL Kubuntu and you are done. Why make it a complicated multi step process?

Is it really that complicated with Ubuntu? I've switched back and forth between gnome and kde several times in fedora, it was pretty easy.

Is downloading Kubuntu that complicated?

I used Kubuntu with a wireless system. One of the reasons for choosing Kubuntu was that the wireless worked right out of the box, not so with Ubuntu. So yes for me it would have been complicated to start with Ubuntu because Ubuntu didn't work with my hardware. I would have had to troubleshoot Ubuntu (either by using a second system or by relocating the wireless system closer to the router and running a wire). Why bother with all that when Kubuntu worked perfect straight out of the box?

Why on earth would you want to redownload the entire operating system to switch from KDE to Gnome or vice versa?

You wouldn't. My suggestion was to choose between KDE and Gnome first, then DL a distro. Someone else suggested switching back and forth. I like KDE so for my taste Ubuntu don't cut it. I tried it anyway just because it is the most popular distro. Didn't like it (cause it didn't work and was slow). OTOH Kubuntu did work.

I downloaded at least a dozen distros in advance before ever trying one. Loaded em all up just to see. I ended up with Puppy, Sabayon and Kubuntu as my favorites.

Naturally a Gnome fan would prefer Ubuntu to Kubuntu so naturally a Gnome fan would DL Ubuntu not Kubuntu.

If you already have Ubuntu working it would of course be a smaller DL to just add KDE. In my case I already had both downloaded so it was pretty easy to pop in the next disk...

You're assuming the person has prior exposure to both KDE and Gnome and can actually make that decision. When I first starting using Linux it took me over a year to finally decide I liked Gnome more then KDE, and that was after experimenting with lots of other WM's like *box, XFCE, Enlightenment.. etc.

If I had to download a new distro every time i wanted to try out a new WM back then I would never have continued to use Linux.

No, you're the one who's incorrectly assuming. Read what you're quoting, and maybe you'll understand:

Since I prefer KDE to Gnome I'd install Kubuntu over Ubuntu. Kubuntu being Ubuntu with the KDE desktop in place of Gnome.

Which part of lakedude's statement there was hard to understand? I also saw nothing in either of those two sentences where he recommends anyone should uninstall any distro. Would you mind pointing that out for me?

Ummm....did you read the part where he said that he had problems with Ubuntu, so he downloaded and installed Kubuntu? He recommended trying Kubuntu for KDE and Ubuntu for gnome, hence the remarks about downloading and installing two separate distros.....

It was just a misunderstanding, he cleared it up, not quite sure why you're jumping in now anyways.

 

[JD50]

slax is kind of cool too btw.

 

[RMSe17]

OpenGEU.. got Ubuntu underneath, but with an amazing GUI of E17

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: RMSe17
OpenGEU.. got Ubuntu underneath, but with an amazing GUI of E17

Neat, I might check that out sometime. I always liked Enlightenment but I never had the patience to really customize it. It'll be nice to start with something that works and go from there.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: RMSe17
OpenGEU.. got Ubuntu underneath, but with an amazing GUI of E17

Neat, I might check that out sometime. I always liked Enlightenment but I never had the patience to really customize it. It'll be nice to start with something that works and go from there.

i played with E17 when the live cd came out with debian etch, it was fugly.

ill take most anything with compiz at this point, i love expo and scaling

 

[Chaotic42]

Debian, mostly out of habit. I started with it in 1996. I tried Red Hat (bleh) back in 1998 or something. Debian is comfortable for me.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Debian is comfortable for me.

but does it spoon you at night?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Debian is comfortable for me.

but does it spoon you at night?

No, I'm closed source.

 

[ochadd]

Linux Mint 6 and PC Linux OS 2009 are both awesome.

Still can't game.

 

[masterbm]

I am fedroa (desktop)and centos(server) fan

 

[XBoxLPU]

Arch without a doubt. Its one the best linux distros I have ever had

 

[zCypher]

The Puppy one looks pretty cool for its amazingly small size, although I've never tried it myself yet.

 

[graysky]

Ubuntu is great for beginners; Arch is a great distro if you know what you want and have a little experience under your belt. Arch is also a good choice for someone who wants the latest versions of software in the repos since it is a rolling release (i.e. you install it once and update it frequently since the packages in the repos are constantly updated). Debian is what I learned on but the lack of updates to their software repos put me off.

 

[Nothinman]

Debian is what I learned on but the lack of updates to their software repos put me off.

That's why I run sid, that way my packages are always mostly current. The only time it lags behind significantly is during a freeze right before a release. Some larger things like Gnome take a bit to make it into sid but since I don't use a full Gnome desktop I haven't seen anything major that I've wanted from a newer version of Gnome for a while now. I just see the version numbers go up occasionally and that's about it, everything works pretty much the same.

 

[skyking]

Just took the time to read this, it has been interesting. I have a new(used) laptop coming with a big drive in it, I have been inspired to dual boot it

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
For server, CentOS. (why pay for Red Hat when yo can get CentOS or any other distro for free?)

you pay for the support.