 |
|
|
| |
| View previous topic - View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DeveloperX
202192397
Joined: 04 May 2003
Posts: 1626
Location: Decatur, IL, USA
|
 Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 9:57 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| LordGalbalan wrote: | What are the differences between the Linux distros? Is software compatible between distros, or do you have to get software specific to each?
For example, what is the difference really between Damn Small Linux, and a larger distribution like Ubuntu? |
software is compatible between distros in source form.
Binaries are less likely to be compatible.
The exception to this are in the case of debian based distros.
Usually all debian binaries for a particular platform (32bit or 64bit) will run on any debian based distro.
The repositories (the places that you install pre-compiled software from) are easier to use in Ubuntu I find.
Damn Small Linux ships with the fluxbox window manager which is very user unfriendly. If you're coming from windows then avoid it like the plague.
I use fluxbox when I need the memory that gnome uses as overhead. I have fluxbox, gnome and kde4 window managers installed on top of my Ubuntu Studio Hardy 64-bit distro.
I dual boot with Vista 64-bit (for offline use only strictly for game testing or playing for the rare occasions when I have company)
I've tried a large selection of linux distros, and I've got good and bad things to say about all of them.
But my overall recommendation is to use Ubuntu.
Its the easiest to install, and use, in my opinion. :)
_________________
Principal Software Architect
Rambling Indie Games, LLC
See my professional portfolio
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tcaudilllg
Dragonmaster
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 1731
Location: Cedar Bluff, VA
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Yeah I'm done with DamnSmall. I discovered there was no "out of the box" way to switch window managers.... I could offer such a product, but it's not worth the trouble.
I don't like to just go to one "ultimate package" and rely on that... I like to test all of my options, so that I at least know what I'm missing. Especially if they are "compact". I'm a minimalist at heart.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RedSlash
Mage
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 331
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:36 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Here are distros I've used:
Ubuntu = user friendly, excellent community and commerical support, widely used
Fedora/redhat = nonstandard desktop env but user friendly, good community and excellent commerical support
Cantos = exactly like redhat exterprise but without the commerical support. I found packages limited though.
Debian = very old software packages but stable as hell. Highly recommend for servers.
Gentoo = the entire os and software is compiled by source code. Depending on your CPU speed, it may take up to 20 hours to compile your base system and 3-120 minutes for every additional piece of software you try install afterwards. The speed gained from custom compilation does not outweigh the amount time wasted compiling packages so I would stay away. Also, it wears your hd out faster too. If you're looking for the learning experience of compiling Linux from scratch, try LFS.
Hope that helps.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tcaudilllg
Dragonmaster
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 1731
Location: Cedar Bluff, VA
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:52 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
One thing I liked about DSL was its package concept. I liked how everything was in one place, so I didn't have to browse all over the place for what I needed. However, package integration with the system was minimal, and required hand tweaking. That's unacceptable for a modern operating system.
What if I was given just the package manager at installation, with a basic window manager just for that purpose, and was able to choose the packages I wanted to install? A truly modular OS like that would be a joy to use, and highly efficient. Like Firefox.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hajo
Demon Hunter
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 779
Location: Between chair and keyboard.
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:14 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| RedSlash wrote: | Here are distros I've used:
Debian = very old software packages but stable as hell. Highly recommend for servers.
|
"Very old" might be relative, but I like Debian for being well tested and really rock solid.
Ubuntu is a more user-friendly and modern Debian, if I'm not mistaken?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RedSlash
Mage
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 331
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: | | "Very old" might be relative, but I like Debian for being well tested and really rock solid. |
Well, old, compared to other distributions. Releases are spaced ~2 years apart it seems.
Ubuntu is a fork off Debian's distro added with a bunch of patches to improve user experience. Ubuntu's releases are spaced every 6 months so you always get caught up with the hottest new software.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tcaudilllg
Dragonmaster
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 1731
Location: Cedar Bluff, VA
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:49 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
|
OK, I've sorta figured out that DS and some of the others are "the bottom of the barrel" or near to it. DS Linux looked like a hacker's toy. I'm only hesitant to use Ubuntu because it's BIG. Like, Windows big. I don't need something that big. I understand that it's meant to kill Windows, but I don't need an OS that hogs 256 megs of my ram. That's just overkill.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeveloperX
202192397
Joined: 04 May 2003
Posts: 1626
Location: Decatur, IL, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 5:05 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| LordGalbalan wrote: | | OK, I've sorta figured out that DS and some of the others are "the bottom of the barrel" or near to it. DS Linux looked like a hacker's toy. I'm only hesitant to use Ubuntu because it's BIG. Like, Windows big. I don't need something that big. I understand that it's meant to kill Windows, but I don't need an OS that hogs 256 megs of my ram. That's just overkill. |
Ubuntu is _not_ big.
The tons of packages and addons are.
Get Xubuntu (which is using a light weight window manager called XFCE that is very fast and runs nicely under 128MB of ram even.)
RAM isn't an issue on linux. You create a swap partition on your hard drive at least 2x your ram size and you'll do fine.
I get the feeling you won't need to run anything major aside from firefox and maybe openoffice to get through your day.
Avoid KDE, its a memory hog.
GNOME is less of one, but still needs ram to run smoothly.
XFCE is very slim, and if that isn't slim enough, then get the IceWM window manager after you install Xubuntu.
But I cannot recommend any better choice for a linux OS when moving from a windows environment than the Ubuntu distribution.
I have linux running quite smooth on an old 386 machine that has 64MB of ram that was found in a trash pile about 10 years ago. it originally had Windows 95 and was sluggish.
Now it hauls ass in comparison running ubuntu with the fluxbox window manager.
_________________
Principal Software Architect
Rambling Indie Games, LLC
See my professional portfolio
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
  |
Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
