Ubuntu is boring me

RadoX · 19 Jul 2009 at 16:55

so ubuntu is boring me, i have the ds3 chip set SATA issue so i belive the newer kernels like ubuntu make this issue go away. i really want something that looks good and is easy to install packages too, but dosent come with aload of apps standard.

what would you recommend ?

BigglesPiP · 19 Jul 2009 at 17:04

Xubuntu? Lots less apps, but a less functional desktop too. I take it you want Gnome?

craptakular · 19 Jul 2009 at 17:12

Arch linux?

eXor · 19 Jul 2009 at 17:52

Debian is what you need.

BigglesPiP · 19 Jul 2009 at 18:25

eXor said:
Debian is what you need.

Debian can be good. But the OP will need to install like so:

1. Install the base install, no desktop.
2. Boot and login at the prompt.
3. sudo apt-get install gnome-base.

This will give you the gnome desktop without the numerous gapplications.

cook001 · 19 Jul 2009 at 18:31

What about mint 7 ?

AJUK · 20 Jul 2009 at 13:15

PCLinuxOS MiniMe gives you a base install of KDE 3.5 but you can use Synaptic to load on what you want afterwards.

BTW, PCLinuxOS 2009.2 full blown version is absolutely awesome.

PermaBanned · 23 Jul 2009 at 23:24

Mint sounds perfect for you, based on Ubuntu so still compatible but great interface, the best 'start' menu and doesn't come with many programs installed but has a handy little thing called 'Mint Install' which can get you anything you want basically.

sibeer · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:21

Mint is my fave distro too. One of the best looking by far, clean and east to work with.

manic111 · 24 Jul 2009 at 15:02

Crunchbang...I know I recommend it in every thread like this, but it's by far the most stable distro that I've used, and also makes a really nice change from Ubuntu, while still being familliar and well supported enough that I can sort any issues that I have.

.walls · 24 Jul 2009 at 17:56

manic111 said:
the most stable distro that I've used

<pedant>Incidentally, the word "stable" is used to describe the tree, not how little the OS or applications crash (although, they are often very related).

In which case, I doubt that Crunchbang is the most stable distro!</pedant>

manic111 · 24 Jul 2009 at 18:02

.walls said:
<pedant>Incidentally, the word "stable" is used to describe the tree, not how little the OS or applications crash (although, they are often very related).

In which case, I doubt that Crunchbang is the most stable distro!</pedant>

Fair enough; it's the distro which I have had the fewest issues with (crashing, sleeping & hibernating etc).

jack.mitchell · 26 Jul 2009 at 15:36

Oxy said:
Arch linux?

+1

Follow the beginners guide to the letter.

PermaBanned · 26 Jul 2009 at 15:51

The problem is there are too many distros. I've been following Linux for nigh on a year and i've barely scratched the surface. You can have more than one, which is the beauty of it, because they're free, but there comes a point when the distros are too similar to have together. Also the problem arises when you boot up... which one do i choose?!?!

marscay · 26 Jul 2009 at 17:45

Arch because.....it's Arch.

.walls · 26 Jul 2009 at 18:37

Arch also gets my vote - I used it for about two years before moving [briefly] to Debian and then on to my current distro (Sabayon).

It's as light as you want it, the x86 version is optimised for i686 (unlike other distros which are i386) and will teach you a lot about linux. It also has one of the best general use package managers around (pacman).

brummie · 26 Jul 2009 at 18:39

install a VirtualBox and try them all out

PermaBanned · 26 Jul 2009 at 19:00

Arch Linux is a limited distro, it's designed to be lightweight. Now if you don't have an old computer, yes it will run faster, but you don't need it. You're better of with a distribution that's got all the features you need, and is something you like and performs well.

.walls · 26 Jul 2009 at 19:36

Superewza said:
Arch Linux is a limited distro, it's designed to be lightweight. Now if you don't have an old computer, yes it will run faster, but you don't need it. You're better of with a distribution that's got all the features you need, and is something you like and performs well.

It's designed to be lightweight by default - but it can be as fat or thin as you want it.

Arch is very much not a limited distro.

EDIT: wiki link. Have a look a the estimated number of packages.

jack.mitchell · 28 Jul 2009 at 10:55

Superewza said:
Arch Linux is a limited distro, it's designed to be lightweight. Now if you don't have an old computer, yes it will run faster, but you don't need it. You're better of with a distribution that's got all the features you need, and is something you like and performs well.

Woah there cowboy, look at these then try and say arch lacks features.

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=75154