It is well known that in GNU / Linux there are distributions for all tastes, and of all flavors. Even some users reluctant to use them, put this virtue as a defect under the pretext that they do not know which one to choose from among so many.
The readers (and friends) who usually visit DesdeLinux you know, that I have installed the same today Debian and tomorrow Archlinux, than vice versa. But this does not mean that I do not have well defined what I need. I am a user who likes to learn and I have a big flaw: versionitis. But I won't talk about myself, so let's get back to the initial topic
What should we do when choosing a Distribution? Very particularly I think that the first answer to this question is another question (forgive the redundancy): What do I need from a Distribution? For example, I have a friend who is a developer. When we talk about it, he tells me:
Use Linux Mint 9 because I need to optimize as long as possible. I can't waste it by setting up all the elements of the system that I'm going to use. And I need what it installs to work and be as stable as possible. Could use debian-stable, but the packages I need are not there, I could use Debian Testing, but I can't take the risk - as rare as it may be - that something will fail me after an update. Linux Mint it also has the PPAs of Ubuntu, where I find many useful things and at least in my case, everything works the first time.
He is definitely right. In my case it does not matter if I install today Arch o Debian and I spend a whole day setting it up, because my job allows it and it doesn't require that much time. My friend is a user who needs to work immediately and Linux Mint 9 (equivalent to Ubuntu 10.04) it gives you that possibility.
But I have another friend who is not a developer but a musician, and uses LMDE (with Squeeze repositories). But first, he pulled out the list of packages he needed from Ubuntu Studio which would have come in handy if it weren't for having problems with the sound card.
These are two clear examples of objective needs. So The first thing we have to do to choose a distribution is, know what we need it for. But there is another point, the resources we have. If we have 8Gb of RAM, an i5 and 500Gb of disk space, anything would be good for us, but the same does not happen when our computer does not exceed the 512 Mb of RAM True?
So the second thing would be find a distribution that gives us what we need in terms of packages, but that allows us to work comfortably without sacrificing the available hardware. That is where the eye candy across Desktop Environments.
And although we could filter the search for the Ideal layout, I will leave you a third and final requirement to take into account, two questions that are related: Do we have a good internet connection available to get the repositories? Do we need to constantly update?
I know people who still use debian-etch, and not for lack of resources, but because in that version they have everything they need for their daily work, they don't need to update anything and how everything works: Why change? And it is very true. Sometimes (those of us who suffer from versionitis) we want to have the latest in packages when in reality, what we currently have works perfectly. But we don't always have access to Internet, or a good connection to download them.
In summary, there are 3 most important factors to take into account:
- Why do we need Distribution?
- What resources do we have?
- Do we have internet? Do we need to have daily access to the repositories and keep up to date?
On second thought, I'm going to add a fourth extra requirement: Community and Documentation. But of course, to get to this we will have to go through the third 😀
Man, I think that here it is changed because of the fact that you do not have to pay among other things, otherwise it would not change so much
Very good article, I have always been attracted to rolling releases, and a complete desktop for my daily tasks.
Arch + Xfce or Arch + Gnome or Arch + KDE. The choice is your .. 😛
I will try arch later, but at this moment ati is not compatible with gnome and kde is too pompous for me, but I do not deny that it is very complete. Only xfce remains.
Xfce Rulez !!! Simple, pretty, simple, fast ... What more could you ask for?
That's right, it is the one I currently use and it works very well.
... rolling release ...
… Full desktop…
The more I read it, the more it sounds like Arch + KDE HAHAHA.
Kde is very nice and complete but too pompous for me, I'm just a common user, I only use the laptop to make reports, read pdf, mail and some video calls with a client. If I install kde it will disable half of the services.
HAHA I still deactivate a lot of KDE, Akonadi… Nepomuk, I don't use them, I deactivate them to save hardware haha.
I don't know why you have 2 Gb of RAM ¬¬
I don't know why you have 2 Gb of RAM. Isn't KDE the "most complete" thing? So why don't you use it as it should?
I don't use Nepomuk or Akonadi, just what they offer doesn't interest me, and neither stupid nor lazy I deactivate them ... I don't see anything negative in that 0_oU
The bad? Well, you are not using KDE as it should be, like all the semantic desktop that is.
Oh yeah ... so I guess if I check your PC, you won't have any Gnome daemon / services disabled right? come on ... Gnome-Keyring, or something like that right? LOL!!!
You know it won't be like this ...
It just doesn't make sense to use 100MBs of RAM (or more) on things that I never use, hence I disable it.
Oops what he said…. Gnome what ....? Haber son, I remind you that I am using "pure" Xfce .. If I have some Gnome installed, it will have been some mandatory dependency that Xfce or one of the applications I use needs. But from Xfce I don't disable anything. I use it as it should be 😀
In my case. Arch is great for me.
Usually I don't pay for my internet service on time, I manage to install or update my Distro.
Work and study at the university, No compatibility, software or hardware problems with school computers. Since I recommended installing Arch Linux in labs and offices.
It's just Arch.
I also have Nepomuk and Akonadi deactivated because I don't use them either and that doesn't mean that I don't take advantage of the power of kde, I just don't use those services and it doesn't make sense to have them there consuming resources. Even so, the power and configuration power that kde continues to offer me cannot be offered by any other desktop, that's why we use kde.
Greetings.
Hello and welcome to the site 😀
KDE without the need for Akonadi and Nepomuk, it is already much more complete than Gnome, Xfce and the rest ... simply because it allows me to configure EVERYTHING without having to touch configuration files, simply because of that it is more complete.
Welcome to the blog… from one KDE user to another 😉
Fanatic!!! Yes, I know, you are going to answer me. I am a fanatic, I am a fanatic, and I will tell you if you !!!, fanaticism is bad for your health JAJAJAJAJA. You deactivate almost everything, I wonder, what do you use KDE for? Better said KDE medium, hehehehehe.
HAHAHAHA I'm not a fan, I recognize many good things about Gnome2, as well as some successes of Gnome3 and Unity, only that I still use KDE because I like it better.
+100
Don't be a fanatic. The fact that a desktop is complete depends on the user's needs. KDE has things that you don't even use, and the same happens with the rest. Don't sell smoke either, because you know perfectly that to deactivate Nepomuk, Akonadi and Virtuoso, you have to touch configuration files in / home ...
One thing has nothing to do with the other
If you have to see. If what you need is to browse and make a letter from time to time in a text editor, what do you want KDE or Gnome for? With LXDE it is enough (for not telling you Openbox, what happens is that it is not a Desktop Environment)
I agree that they are different things, but I suppose the idea was to say (so it would be clearer) that:
The fact that a desktop is satisfactory (in terms of sufficiency, need and desire) for the user, depends on the criteria that the user assumes (as sufficient, necessary and desirable for him).
Greetings.
Actually Nepomuk = Virtuous hehe… 😉
Welcome jony127:
But they are disabling the services that are part of KDE's pride, which makes it semantic… Without Akonadi Kmail doesn't work well at all, so you would have to use another mail client. So you are not using full KDE. It is as if I now use Xfce with the Gnome panel, PCManFm as file manager and the like .. I am no longer using Xfce ..
If they are not with Ubuntu they are against! hehe joke….
... well I continue to use ubuntu with xfce or xubuntu directly, they facilitate fast installations to slow pcs and without internet.
Clear! I love that X / Ubuntu advantage, you can install it immediately on old PCs at home without internet access.
Sure, and not just Ubuntu, but many distros
And once criteria 1,2,3 and 3.1 have been met, if there are several options left, which one to choose? Well, anyone or, as a suggestion, each of them from time to time (since they all change in each version and there will be times that you like one more and, other times, another).
Greetings.