What Linux distribution would you install right now?

[xSauronx]

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.

You can download *buntu and add any DE with a pseudo-package configured for *buntu and just pick whatever session you want at the login like you would with any other distro.

Im also about ready to kick Ubuntu to the curb. Every time I get happy with it for 3 or 4 months some update breaks something. In 8.04 it was wifi and sleep, and in 8.10 Im suddenly having audio issues and Im really starting to get sick of this kind of thing.

 

[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?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: JD50
Fedora for desktop, CentOS or RHEL for a server, depending on my needs.

 

[JD50]

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?

Your wireless problem is a completely different issue.

My only point was that there's really no need to download a separate distro just to try out KDE. I've used Ubuntu a little bit, but never bothered with Kubuntu, so I honestly don't know, that's why I asked. IMO, it seems much simpler to download a package and just switch from Gnome to KDE, then to download and install a whole new distro. Well, simpler might not be the right word, I'm sure both methods are relatively easy, but it seems like it would take a lot less time to just download KDE and try it out over downloading and installing another distro.

 

[mxnerd]

Ubuntu for desktop, CentOS for server.

 

[Silverbullet28]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
openSUSE with gnome

This..

 

[Brainonska511]

If I was going to go back to Linux (maybe if I build a desktop, I'll go back to it.... not enough space left on my laptop), I'd go with Ubuntu or openSUSE (w/gnome). KDE 4.1 was nice in Kubuntu 8.10, but it felt very unfinished. I hear KDE 4.2 fixed many issues, so I would probably want to try Kubuntu (or openSUSE with KDE) again, just to see how it works now.

 

[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 can install either of those in any version of Ubuntu with a click of a few buttons in Synaptic. In fact, for someone that already has Ubuntu installed that's a far better method then downloading a new ISO and installing from scratch.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Ubuntu on a 4gb flash drive.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Add Slamd64 please

 

[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...

 

[DarkThinker]

Fedora on Desktop-Laptops-Workstations with CentOS / RedHat on Server Best combo you can make PERIOD

I :heart: Fedora

 

[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.

 

[lakedude]

Crusty, you make a good point regarding WMs. Hard to know which one you like better if you have tried neither.

My advice was based on my experience with Kubuntu working out of the box and Ubuntu not working out of the box.

In such case starting out with Kubuntu would be much easier than troubleshooting Ubuntu and adding KDE.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Forget KDE/Gnome, Scrotwm FTW!

 

[xcript]

I've been running Gentoo on my desktop for years and am happy with it, but if I were to start from scratch I think I'd go with Debian.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Forget KDE/Gnome, Scrotwm FTW!

WTH?!

I first read it as "ScrotumWM FTW!" I was like :Q
:laugh:

 

[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

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: lakedude
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

Debian would run great on that system.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Forget KDE/Gnome, <Scrotwm FTW!

WTH?!

I first read it as "ScrotumWM FTW!" I was like :Q
:laugh:

Yeah, most of the complaints I've heard about it relate to the name.

I don't think it would work well on my primary system (eee701), but I keep meaning to try it on my backup (15" powerbook).

 

[Gooberlx2]

I'm running Opensuse 11.1/Gnome at work, and managing co-worker workstations with 10.3/KDE. I think Opensuse is an excellent distribution. I like that Ubuntu has a LTS release though.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Forget KDE/Gnome, <<Scrotwm FTW!

WTH?!

I first read it as "ScrotumWM FTW!" I was like :Q
:laugh:

Yeah, most of the complaints I've heard about it relate to the name.

I don't think it would work well on my primary system (eee701), but I keep meaning to try it on my backup (15" powerbook).

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

 

[lxskllr]

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

I'm using a 900 as my primary laptop, and I love it. I gave my mother my Lenovo since I wasn't using it, and I'll probably sell her Acer.

 

[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.

 

[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