Debian or arch for my netbook?

craptakular

craptakular

craptakular

Soldato
Joined
7 Jan 2007
Posts
10,607
Location
Sussex, UK
Hiya me again!!

I bought a Toshiba NB100 netbook last month and have had a play with Slackware, it seems rather bloated to me and with no package manager I was a bit lost.

I did have one success though! My wireless card, under ubuntu it just works but every other OS it doesn't I found a fix though and it scanned for connects thorugh terminal, but I couldn't work out how to install WICD in slackware.

I also don't have much time to fiddle with it. Arch is lightning quick but I had issues with wireless, which I think I can now resolve! Should I try arch again?

What about debian? I could do a net install and only install what I want, keeping it quick and bloat free.

Any other suggestions?
 
Oxy said:
I bought a Toshiba NB100 netbook last month and have had a play with Slackware, it seems rather bloated to me and with no package manager I was a bit lost.
Click to expand...

Hi Oxy! Slack does have a package manager... it's just pkgtool is a pile of ****!!

Depends, really.... If you want bleeding edge and you're not going to update often (because it will break), go for Arch. If you want stable as stable can be and are not going to update often (because updates are released once every three years), go for Debian.

You've obviously jumped around a bit and tried quite a few new distros (I've seen your threads!), so perhaps it's time to try something a bit meatier... like Gentoo (stage 3)? You'll learn a silly amount about linux in just the first few days... although, I would strongly recommend not using the bundled install script that comes with it these days.... also.... make sure you set up distcc, or it will take 40 days and 40 nights to get everything compiled!

EDIT: bugger... just read the "don't have much time to fiddle with it" bit... forget about gentoo then!!
 
Debian, because all other distros are for losers! ha ha

No Debian should be fine, chatting to a few guys last night running it on Eeepc's and aparently it's all good :D
 
I started using linux in 2004 and as you have all noticed, used dozens of distro's now, the trouble is I switch so much I don't use my comp/laptop/netbook for much else lol.

Arch tought me shed loads in 2006, but I'm alwaqys scared of breaking it, simply because it takes hours to re-install.

Debian I love on my server, it's so stable and standard.

I did install arch on my netbook and it was the quickest distro to date on it, I just couldn't get wireless working, now I had a breakthrough on slackware I can use the same technique on arch.

hhhmmmm still thinking debian or arch.

I do have time for gentoo at xmas, going to take a week off studying. The trouble is I don't want it to break. How fast is a debian netinstall comapred to arch?

I may install ubuntu on it just to steal the xorg.conf as it handled my laptop trackpad thingy very well.
 
Arch maybe ok, all I want is pidgin, firefox, and an e-mail client installed and openoffice for very light work (basically checking work at uni)

So it shouldn't break much with basic gnome installed and a couple of programs??
 
Oxy said:
I do have time for gentoo at xmas, going to take a week off studying. The trouble is I don't want it to break. How fast is a debian netinstall comapred to arch?
Click to expand...


I've not done a net install of arch, but Debian was pretty speedy on a 10MB connection (must have been under 20 minutes).
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Slackware... bloated? :/
Click to expand...
Oxy said:
Slackware install ran to 6GB
Click to expand...

The default install is massive mostly because of the lack of even a half decent package manager... you know... one that works out dependencies... so the installer recommends very strongly that you install it all.

Yes, Slack can be made as light as you want - but why bother? Slack needs to get with the times and stop with the elitist BS.

Oxy said:
How fast is a debian netinstall comapred to arch?
Click to expand...
If you know what you're doing with Arch, Arch is faster, if you're running through the install scripts, Debian will give you a configured system faster.

Oxy said:
I may install ubuntu on it just to steal the xorg.conf as it handled my laptop trackpad thingy very well.
Click to expand...

That's why you make backups of these things and keep them in handy (backed up) places... xorg.conf, smb.conf, etc, etc ;)
 
Last edited:
sidux seems popular atm. it's bleeding-edge Debian made stable, so you don't have so many packages from 2001 :p

as for bloat... anyone seen KDE4? after installing it once I ran screaming into the open arms of xfce.

oh, and just for the fun of saying it: Win7 has the nicest UI of all the OS I use regularly. having the new taskbar with its stacking icons is delightful, and makes it very hard to go back to using "old-style" taskbars, where everything just seems so cramped in comparison.

that was a bit off-topic, wasn't it :p
 
KDE4?

1.jpg


Yeah, it looks alright. I guess you need something to combat Aero...

I haven't used Win7 at all really since i bought it, just for like an hour. I didn't entirely get the interface but i'm sure it works. I still prefer most versions of Linux :)
 
I can't stand KDE, how anyone case use it in a professional capacity I dunno. It just seems so childish even when I try to customise it, it still looks like it was designed for a 12 year old with learning difficulties. Gnome, xfce or just a plain terminal for me :D
 
dangerstat said:
I can't stand KDE, how anyone case use it in a professional capacity I dunno. It just seems so childish even when I try to customise it, it still looks like it was designed for a 12 year old with learning difficulties. Gnome, xfce or just a plain terminal for me :D
Click to expand...

Different things for different people, I suppose.

I like the way KDE 4 looks and far prefer it to Gnome/XFCE, as GTK just looks clunky to me. I use Openbox, btw.
 
.walls said:
Different things for different people, I suppose.

I like the way KDE 4 looks and far prefer it to Gnome/XFCE, as GTK just looks clunky to me. I use Openbox, btw.
Click to expand...

Absolutely I think it's also based on what your used to using. If you use gnome day in day out for years, it's hard to switch even if I did like KDE.

What's openbox like?

EDIT: Wow it's very lightweight isn't it! lol
 
Last edited:
The performance difference is insane using xfce / openbox over a full gnome desktop, haven't really noticed in the past on a decent spec machine but on this Atom 330 based desktop it flies in xfce and openbox. Oxy if your on a single core Atom definitely go debian with openbox IMO
 
dangerstat said:
What's openbox like?

EDIT: Wow it's very lightweight isn't it! lol
Click to expand...

Very nice... and as you've noticed, very, very lightweight!

Basically, it's a fork of Blackbox (so similar to Fluxbox as well... except it's actually updated!). It's one of the nicest WMs I've used and it's hugely customisable, which is good - because like Flux, it's ugly as sin by default!

EDIT:
dangerstat said:
The performance difference is insane using xfce / openbox over a full gnome desktop, haven't really noticed in the past on a decent spec machine but on this Atom 330 based desktop it flies in xfce and openbox. Oxy if your on a single core Atom definitely go debian with openbox IMO
Click to expand...

lol - you've just installed it, haven't you? :)
 
I'm downloading sudx XKCE now, I think i'll use openbox as the window manager. Arch linux + Gnome + openbox WM was really quick to!

Sidux + Openbox WM might be the easy way! Will report back with finding soon! :p
 
I have tried openbox before and its awesome, but needs a few hours to tweak the desktop, time I simply don't have this year :p

XFCE +OB WM is my quick fix :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom