hey whats going on? about a month ago i switched to Ubuntu and after learning so much with Ubuntu i think that im ready to move on to another distro. i would like to move on to debian and from using ubuntu so much i would like to know if this is the better distro between the two? what are the differences and what are the similarities? help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!!! i am not trying to start a debate between which distro is better or not i am asking for my own knowledge.
ubuntu is built from debian base.. some things are similar, other things are different. Generally debian has more options as it is more mainstream.. but it can still be a menace just like ubuntu for dependency problems with software which should work. You should find it familiar, and at the same time different... forget about sudo and be ready to mess with certain things which ubuntu devs have made easy. Where you are at now happens to most ubuntu users eventually.. the annoyances and restrictions start to outweigh the advantages of the "make it easy" formula. Grab debian testing netinstall and go for it. It should feel very familiar and not too many surprises... debian will run software from most of it's offsprings releases,(64studio, knoppix, arch etc) unless it's been built for ubuntu.. that is a ways upstream using the experimental repositories which aren't for the faint hearted. How brave do you feel? There are lots of debian based distros out there, or you could even build your own by installing a base system and adding only the bits you want. Have fun.. any more help fire away.. I'm full time debian.. I think most regulars in here are in one flavour or another.. apart from creakster.. he's a dual system heretic with worrying M$ leanings (leg pullings are us)
Just to be a picky bitch, Arch isn't a derivative of anything. Maybe you're thinking of Ark? Arch borrows a few ideas from Gentoo and Slackware if anything I guess, but has nothing to do with any other distro, using its own package manager and .tar.gz packages. Edit: 32 bit is also i686, so it probably isn't possible to run the packages on 32 bit Ubuntu either.
Last arch I saw used dpkg and debs 0.4alpha something.. was using the debian sarge 2.4 kernel.. has that changed now then? Bloody installer was broken anyways.. lol Generally best to avoid trying to use any ubuntu packages on debian, even though they have a nasty habit of being labeled "all-deb".. dependency nightmare, easy to break everything.. "was naught but an skellington covered wiv skin" - Featherlinux
Nope, has never had a thing to do with Debian, not even remotely. Modeled on CRUX, but built from the ground up. Package manager is named pacman, and packages are .tar.gz, with the ability to build from source using files sort of similar to Gentoo ebuilds. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Compared_To_Other_Distros#Arch_vs_CRUX
Dunno what that thing I had was then, maybe some feather spinoff or something. I can't find the disk even now. I really wouldn't recommend arch to somebody with only ubuntu experience. made or releted to crux?. hmmm.. not mainstream enough really.. never had any luck with gentoo type things. Sabayon just killed one of my burners with it's damn 30 odd hour repair install... I just want to get on with stuff.. not wait days for my os to update itself.
I think it pretty funny that folks think they need to spend time learning another distro before they finally make it to Debian. I put Debian on machines owned by kids to grandma's and there are never any issues. Honest. I like Arch -- but it's not that user friendly is it? It's not hard, per say, it just takes some gumption to not quit. Arch is a fine distro, but Debian is for all. Anyway -- how's it all working out for you? Debian is what it is, like Arch. Awww -- fu$*it, I'm drunk. What was the question?
Waiting for him to come back to us.. I have run debian since about 95 so it's like an old jumper.. a bit smelly with some holes in it and coming unravelled around the edges... but I love it I try the others.. honest I do, but they just don't seem to work properly half the time, or take forever, or are crippled by design (read suse) I was looking at the linux counter stats.. there are more registered debian users (desktop and servers) than all the others put together.. Now that may just be because we are a bit more pointedly FOSS than say the ubuntu and mint users, but even so.. it must say something about good ol debian. One thing that really does get my goat tho.. The people who do the documentation must live in a different universe from the rest of us.. never have I ever read a debian guide that was the same as my screen.... never.. not once.. I would write a couple of my own guides.. but I don't want to break that 100% record of them being wrong.
Aw, ease up on the old documentation writers. It isn't easy to keep the documentation up to date with the software, especially when you have such a fast moving target like FOSS. At least if you have more than a couple brain cells to bash together you can work out where things have moved to*. As for Arch - it isn't noob friendly. Saying it isn't user friendly is a lot different. It just expects you to kind of know what you're doing and keeps out of your way, but the documentation IS good on the wiki. And if the wiki isn't correct, you're quite welcome to rectify that situation, being a wiki and all. *Except for a few things in KDE4, as I'm presently discovering. Kinda hard to find where things have gone when they're just plain not there presently. That said, I'm getting used to it, haven't used KDE for years so not too bad, not like I need to forget and relearn stuff. The kdemod guys have done a decent job.
That's the one thing I didn't like about sabayon last week.. gnome is crap on it, and kde is too unfamiliar. My gripe with the debian documentation is very real.. I have looked at documentation for the latest release and it is wrong.. docs written the same day as the distro version download..they should be at least close. I think it's more funny than serious.. the way 100% of things can be wrong.. but it must be really frustrating for a n00b encountering the debian documentation for the first time when nothing is where they say it is, and screens don't contain the same information.. OR.. they like generating lots of traffic for the debian help (unhelp IMHO) forum.. a classic case of "RTFM".. "I have but it doesn't say that on my computer.. grrrrrr"!! so what does it say.. "blah blah blah" ........ silence ....... I learned long ago not to get involved.. hehehehe. Gotta go.. I'm trying to put xfce on my 64 machine because I'm wanting to get away from the .net hidden stuff and it's 5am.
That was the reasoning for cutting ties with gnome here too. Too much stuff is starting to become infested with mono or potentially could be soon in gnome, and as far as I see it, it is only a matter of time before blacklisting mono will cause the core gnome package to fail. Their devs don't help either, one reply I've seen where someone suggested re-implementing tomboy was basically a smug "I'd like to see you try". Considered the lightweight ones, but figured I'd give KDE4 a crack and see what everyone was whinging about, it really isn't that bad from first impressions.
I had a couple honest posts filled with real concern deleted from a particular Gnome dev's site because he, and his crowd, just didn't want to confront the issue. Lately there is a rekindled concern about mono. For me, mono is the biggest reason I have dumped Gnome and until this whole mono (potential) nightmare is sorted, with real answers to real questions, I won't be going back to Gnome. I also won't be writing any tutorials at debtoots that highlight Gnome, either. Xfce4 has become fantastic and there's LXDE, too. Add a few KDE apps and schwiiiing, what a solid desktop with all the functionality anyone needs. I just cannot bring myself to trust a smiling wolf. No, sir.
