What Linux Distro do the Linux users of GH use?

[rowdy]

Any opinions as to whether VirtualBox or VMware Workstation Player (ie. the free one) would be better for running a lightweight, desktop instance of Linux?

I'd go with VirtualBox, simply because it's the full version with all capabilities.

I do use it a lot, mostly on Mac hosts with Windows and Linux clients.  Works well.

[m3ll3n]

i'm an arch guy 

[user 18]

Any opinions as to whether VirtualBox or VMware Workstation Player (ie. the free one) would be better for running a lightweight, desktop instance of Linux?

Definitely virtualbox. Perhaps it's just because it's what I'm used to, but I found it was much easier to get things set up and working properly than using VMWare player

[xtrafrood]

My puppy/i3 started to get a bit funky so I kinda dove headfirst into SUSEstudio. I finally have an OS on a usb drive that won't load into ram at startup yet it saves all changes.

[No_joke]

Sadly I have to use Windows at work (MSVC...) even though I consider myself much more of a linux guy.
At home I'm running arch because the wiki is so great and the package manger is soo good. 

[iri]

But, systemd

[KnightDX]

Ubuntu, I keep it simple

[sth]

Ubuntu, I keep it simple

< insert elitist definition of simplicity here >

[xtrafrood]

Ubuntu, I keep it simple

< insert elitist definition of simplicity here >

I just borked my Manjaro/i3 by updating Linux Mint. Same HDD, different partitions.. I'm feelin' some Ubuntu right about now

edit - grub was acting up. dang

[rowdy]

But, systemd

You kinda get used to systemd, although I do sometimes miss simply grepping log files.

[vivalarevolución]

Ubuntu, I keep it simple

< insert elitist definition of simplicity here >

I'm pretty sure that clean and simple is the selling point of every new or updated Linux distro at the moment.  In fact, they are so clean and simple that I can't find anything and the whole cleanliness is ruined because I have a bunch of windows open at any one time.

[drakche]

Hi guy.
Mint and Antergos Arch user here.

Linux user for the last 10ish or so years

[vivalarevolución]

Hi guy.
Mint and Antergos Arch user here.

Linux user for the last 10ish or so years

How do you like Antergos?  Work smoothly for the most part?

[Leslieann]

Hi guy.
Mint and Antergos Arch user here.

Linux user for the last 10ish or so years

How do you like Antergos?  Work smoothly for the most part?

I've found both to be quite good.
I like Antergos, it's a tad faster than Mint (just barely), but it's a quite a bit less noob friendly and much more likely to trash itself.

Antergos is great, but it tends to be far more on the bleeding edge so odds of you downloading an update that kills it, is far more likely, and when it does, the support channel is not nearly what Mint/Ubuntu's is because Antergos is based on Arch and Arch expects you to know what you are doing. So instead of someone handing you a solution in a forum post, you end up trolling the bug lists and trying to figure out the problem. While easy to install, upkeep and troubleshooting is still Arch Linux and not for the feint of heart.

[drakche]

Yeah. It is more or less like that.

I always try to find an alternative for cinnamon and mint, but the stability and customisation and speed always pulls me back.


They made a kick ass job of it. And I'll probably will always​ be my go to distro.

Sent from my Redmi Pro using Tapatalk

[xtrafrood]

How is Linux Mint with Cinnamon speedy? So far Linux Mint with Cinnamon is one of the bulkiest distros I've tried. Stable and easy customization yes, but I wouldn't call it speedy.

[vivalarevolución]

Hi guy.
Mint and Antergos Arch user here.

Linux user for the last 10ish or so years

How do you like Antergos?  Work smoothly for the most part?

I've found both to be quite good.
I like Antergos, it's a tad faster than Mint (just barely), but it's a quite a bit less noob friendly and much more likely to trash itself.

Antergos is great, but it tends to be far more on the bleeding edge so odds of you downloading an update that kills it, is far more likely, and when it does, the support channel is not nearly what Mint/Ubuntu's is because Antergos is based on Arch and Arch expects you to know what you are doing. So instead of someone handing you a solution in a forum post, you end up trolling the bug lists and trying to figure out the problem. While easy to install, upkeep and troubleshooting is still Arch Linux and not for the feint of heart.

Yeah. It is more or less like that.

I always try to find an alternative for cinnamon and mint, but the stability and customisation and speed always pulls me back.


They made a kick ass job of it. And I'll probably will always​ be my go to distro.

Sent from my Redmi Pro using Tapatalk

Thanks for the replies.  I've tried Antergos and like it, but I prefer more hand-holding and don't need bleeding edge for my Linux usage.  For what it's worth, I have been using Manjaro for probably six months now and had very few issues that I didn't cause myself.  I know that it's not as pure Arch as something like Antergos, but I like it for what it is.

And I agree, Linux Mint does a great job for what it is trying to accomplish.

[sth]

Just went through another void install and it reminded me again of why i like it so much.
if i need a distro with EVERYTHING i'll use slackware. for anything else void fits in very well.

[Leslieann]

Thanks for the replies.  I've tried Antergos and like it, but I prefer more hand-holding and don't need bleeding edge for my Linux usage.  For what it's worth, I have been using Manjaro for probably six months now and had very few issues that I didn't cause myself.  I know that it's not as pure Arch as something like Antergos, but I like it for what it is.

And I agree, Linux Mint does a great job for what it is trying to accomplish.

Use what works for you.
Don't let the hardcore crowd tell you you "need" to be using something else.

How is Linux Mint with Cinnamon speedy? So far Linux Mint with Cinnamon is one of the bulkiest distros I've tried. Stable and easy customization yes, but I wouldn't call it speedy.

I've never seen an issue with speed on it.
Are there faster? Of course, but I've never really seen it run slower than any other distros, including light weight ones.

[xtrafrood]

Thanks for the replies.  I've tried Antergos and like it, but I prefer more hand-holding and don't need bleeding edge for my Linux usage.  For what it's worth, I have been using Manjaro for probably six months now and had very few issues that I didn't cause myself.  I know that it's not as pure Arch as something like Antergos, but I like it for what it is.

And I agree, Linux Mint does a great job for what it is trying to accomplish.

Use what works for you.
Don't let the hardcore crowd tell you you "need" to be using something else.

How is Linux Mint with Cinnamon speedy? So far Linux Mint with Cinnamon is one of the bulkiest distros I've tried. Stable and easy customization yes, but I wouldn't call it speedy.

I've never seen an issue with speed on it.
Are there faster? Of course, but I've never really seen it run slower than any other distros, including light weight ones.

In my experience, it runs about that same as Gnome/KDE/Mate when I turn off compositing, animations, etc. Something changed somewhere between 2012 and now. Mint 13 with Cinnamon used less system resources iirc

[Leslieann]

Thanks for the replies.  I've tried Antergos and like it, but I prefer more hand-holding and don't need bleeding edge for my Linux usage.  For what it's worth, I have been using Manjaro for probably six months now and had very few issues that I didn't cause myself.  I know that it's not as pure Arch as something like Antergos, but I like it for what it is.

And I agree, Linux Mint does a great job for what it is trying to accomplish.

Use what works for you.
Don't let the hardcore crowd tell you you "need" to be using something else.

How is Linux Mint with Cinnamon speedy? So far Linux Mint with Cinnamon is one of the bulkiest distros I've tried. Stable and easy customization yes, but I wouldn't call it speedy.

I've never seen an issue with speed on it.
Are there faster? Of course, but I've never really seen it run slower than any other distros, including light weight ones.

In my experience, it runs about that same as Gnome/KDE/Mate when I turn off compositing, animations, etc. Something changed somewhere between 2012 and now. Mint 13 with Cinnamon used less system resources iirc

That could be par of it, I turn off animations right away on any os I use.

[drakche]

No animations whatsoever.
I run it totally plain.
And from 4gb i3 machines, to 32gb monsters it works like a breeze.

Idling, it's about the same as a Gnome for RAM usage, at least on things I've tried.

[drakche]

Oh my god.
I haven't used windows since w7.

And just today built a new living room pc for gaming...

W10 is horrendous​.

Why...


As soon as I fix up thr PSU I'm dual booting this baby.


On another note, every game I own on ultra high is amazing.



I just needed to share my frustrations.
Sent from my Redmi Pro using Tapatalk

[rowdy]

Did anyone use the (now defunct) distro CrunchBang?

I heard about it on a podcast and tried it - it was great, but I needed something else at the time and so removed it.

Later on when I went back to try it again it had gone away for good.

[northpark]

I wouldn't call myself a "user," but I'm trying to deploy Mattermost on an Ubuntu server and I have no idea what I'm doing.

[user 18]

Did anyone use the (now defunct) distro CrunchBang?

I heard about it on a podcast and tried it - it was great, but I needed something else at the time and so removed it.

Later on when I went back to try it again it had gone away for good.

I did, for several years. Nice little lightweight distro. When it went by the wayside, I made myself a minimal, openbox-based Debian Jessie install for my main rig. While that's no longer my primary machine, I really enjoyed it.

If you're interested in something along the same lines, take a look at BunsenLabs or Crunchbang++. BunsenLabs seems to be a bit more actively maintained.

[vivalarevolución]

If you're interested in something along the same lines, take a look at BunsenLabs or Crunchbang++. BunsenLabs seems to be a bit more actively maintained.

I was going to say this, but user 18 beat me to the punch.  I tried BunsneLabs and liked it, but Openbox is not my favorite thing, I prefer a tiling window manger or traditional DE over a stacking window manager like Openbox.

[sth]

Did anyone use the (now defunct) distro CrunchBang?

I heard about it on a podcast and tried it - it was great, but I needed something else at the time and so removed it.

Later on when I went back to try it again it had gone away for good.

i was pretty into crunchbang for a while. i even made one of the wallpapers that shipped with it for a long time :O

[rowdy]

I did, for several years. Nice little lightweight distro. When it went by the wayside, I made myself a minimal, openbox-based Debian Jessie install for my main rig. While that's no longer my primary machine, I really enjoyed it.

If you're interested in something along the same lines, take a look at BunsenLabs or Crunchbang++. BunsenLabs seems to be a bit more actively maintained.

I noted that there were some replacements, but my need for a minimal distro has expired.  For what it was at the time it was great!

i was pretty into crunchbang for a while. i even made one of the wallpapers that shipped with it for a long time :O

Awesome!  Great that the community can contribute to a distro in ways like that, especially the artwork that would be seen by thousands or more people everywhere.

[vivalarevolución]

So did anyone else hear the news?  Unity is dead.  Ubuntu is giing back to GNOME as the default desktop.

https://insights.ubuntu.com/2017/04/05/growing-ubuntu-for-cloud-and-iot-rather-than-phone-and-convergence/

[xtrafrood]

So did anyone else hear the news?  Unity is dead.  Ubuntu is giing back to GNOME as the default desktop.

https://insights.ubuntu.com/2017/04/05/growing-ubuntu-for-cloud-and-iot-rather-than-phone-and-convergence/

Sure did. Sounds like a good idea to me. A few days ago I installed the new vanilla Arch iso via WM. Gnome behaved really well.

[dubious]

Did anyone use the (now defunct) distro CrunchBang?

I heard about it on a podcast and tried it - it was great, but I needed something else at the time and so removed it.

Later on when I went back to try it again it had gone away for good.

YES! #! was one of my favorite distros! I loved the ez flat file configs, and conky....mmmmm conkyssssss...
I've tried bunsenlabs and #!++, but I dunno... they just haven't felt the same.

I'm still looking for a distro to stick with, I've just been using ubuntu+mint right now with gnome (good riddance unity) I'll have to scroll through this thread some more, and give some a shot when I have more time.

[SBJ]

So did anyone else hear the news?  Unity is dead.  Ubuntu is giing back to GNOME as the default desktop.

https://insights.ubuntu.com/2017/04/05/growing-ubuntu-for-cloud-and-iot-rather-than-phone-and-convergence/

Doesn't bother me that much tbh. I always liked gnome.

[Jhors2]

Ubuntu, just because of ease of use and community support for most HTPC packages using deb.

[madhias]

Since October 2015 my PC is sporting Arch as main OS, yesterday I switched to LTS kernel. Not that many thing broke using the latest kernel all the time, but things like hibernate mode for example sometimes work, sometimes not. But in general I still like it, and learning all the time. What I like most is that I can read on the Wiki, and it feels like sitting in front of the PC

[profanum429]

I started with Slackware a long time ago and then eventually migrated to Arch which is where I've stayed for the past number of years. I enjoy it

[iri]

My wife's laptop, which runs Mint 17, would call a random Skype contact on wake up... Without unlocking. Or even showing a log in window. Or any other controls.

I decided that this behaviour is unacceptable and moved on with my quest after a usable Linux distro. The next one I installed for her this morning is Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. I already saw two bugs: the UI says the current keyboard layout is 'En' while it's actually 'Ru', and bluetooth settings not showing any devices around while bluetooth itself actually works (I've checked that with bluetoothctl).

[Leslieann]

My wife's laptop, which runs Mint 17, would call a random Skype contact on wake up... Without unlocking. Or even showing a log in window. Or any other controls.

This sounds like a Skype bug (shocker!). Don;'t forget, underneath Mint is Ubuntu, so your new system could very well have the same bug.



I finished my Mac experiments and have gone back to Linux (glad that's over).
I keep coming back to Antergos, so long as you run LTS and not bleeding edge, it works fantastic. All of the benefits of Arch and Ubuntu/Mint, without the hassle.

[iri]

My wife's laptop, which runs Mint 17, would call a random Skype contact on wake up... Without unlocking. Or even showing a log in window. Or any other controls.

This sounds like a Skype bug (shocker!).

The machine wakes up, but there's no login screen in the X session and no available controls.

[lzrdwzrd]

Parabola GNU/Linux libre with i3gaps and XFCE for laptop.

Debian stretch on desktop with the same window managers.

[iLLucionist]

My wife's laptop, which runs Mint 17, would call a random Skype contact on wake up... Without unlocking. Or even showing a log in window. Or any other controls.

This sounds like a Skype bug (shocker!). Don;'t forget, underneath Mint is Ubuntu, so your new system could very well have the same bug.



I finished my Mac experiments and have gone back to Linux (glad that's over).
I keep coming back to Antergos, so long as you run LTS and not bleeding edge, it works fantastic. All of the benefits of Arch and Ubuntu/Mint, without the hassle.

What do you mean by "Mac experiments"?

[Leslieann]

What do you mean by "Mac experiments"?

I was running Mac laptop (nothing PC competes with the 11in Air) and built a hackintosh for a bit but it was more to see if it stuck.
It didn't.

One interesting thing to note...
Compared to Linux and Windows, Macs do not scale well. While they are very memory efficient (better than Linux and Windows), adding a faster processor, drive and even more memory did very little in terms of performance gains.

I'll probably be doing a write up on the experience soon, probably be a good read for those considering an OS swap as I'm well versed in Mac (and Hackintosh), Linux and Windows.

[xtrafrood]

What do you mean by "Mac experiments"?

I was running Mac laptop (nothing PC competes with the 11in Air) and built a hackintosh for a bit but it was more to see if it stuck.
It didn't.

One interesting thing to note...
Compared to Linux and Windows, Macs do not scale well. While they are very memory efficient (better than Linux and Windows), adding a faster processor, drive and even more memory did very little in terms of performance gains.

I'll probably be doing a write up on the experience soon, probably be a good read for those considering an OS swap as I'm well versed in Mac (and Hackintosh), Linux and Windows.

Lately I've developed a desire to know more about Unixy systems. I'd sign up to read that. The last Apple desktop I used was a G3 back when it was still relevant in the Mac world. IIRC it wasn't a bad experience at all.

[iLLucionist]

What do you mean by "Mac experiments"?

I was running Mac laptop (nothing PC competes with the 11in Air) and built a hackintosh for a bit but it was more to see if it stuck.
It didn't.

One interesting thing to note...
Compared to Linux and Windows, Macs do not scale well. While they are very memory efficient (better than Linux and Windows), adding a faster processor, drive and even more memory did very little in terms of performance gains.

I'll probably be doing a write up on the experience soon, probably be a good read for those considering an OS swap as I'm well versed in Mac (and Hackintosh), Linux and Windows.

Interesting you say that. My "true" mac is a late 2010 MacBook Pro. Recently, I built a hackintosh for my mom: i5 6500 3.2 GHz, 16GB DDR4 2333 MHz, Samsung 850 Pro 512 GB, and the Asus H170 Pro. I expected it to be amazingly fast with OS X. You know... not mobile hardware like all Apple products except the Mac Pro (iMac, Mac Mini all use mobile versions of intel hardware and graphics).

I always first install xubuntu or some other linux to see how the system performs. It was sick fast. Fast boot, instant everything.

Then I installed Sierra. There is noticeable lag with EVERYTHING. *click* system preferences --> 4 second wait. *click* finder --> 3 second wait. *click* safari already open, new window --> 2 second wait.

Why is it not instant? Why the wait? It really feels like vista. I mean, why has OS X been so slow since Yosemite? Why is an UI make-over so taxing on the OS's performance?

[bastones]

What do you mean by "Mac experiments"?

I was running Mac laptop (nothing PC competes with the 11in Air) and built a hackintosh for a bit but it was more to see if it stuck.
It didn't.

One interesting thing to note...
Compared to Linux and Windows, Macs do not scale well. While they are very memory efficient (better than Linux and Windows), adding a faster processor, drive and even more memory did very little in terms of performance gains.

I'll probably be doing a write up on the experience soon, probably be a good read for those considering an OS swap as I'm well versed in Mac (and Hackintosh), Linux and Windows.

Interesting you say that. My "true" mac is a late 2010 MacBook Pro. Recently, I built a hackintosh for my mom: i5 6500 3.2 GHz, 16GB DDR4 2333 MHz, Samsung 850 Pro 512 GB, and the Asus H170 Pro. I expected it to be amazingly fast with OS X. You know... not mobile hardware like all Apple products except the Mac Pro (iMac, Mac Mini all use mobile versions of intel hardware and graphics).

I always first install xubuntu or some other linux to see how the system performs. It was sick fast. Fast boot, instant everything.

Then I installed Sierra. There is noticeable lag with EVERYTHING. *click* system preferences --> 4 second wait. *click* finder --> 3 second wait. *click* safari already open, new window --> 2 second wait.

Why is it not instant? Why the wait? It really feels like vista. I mean, why has OS X been so slow since Yosemite? Why is an UI make-over so taxing on the OS's performance?

I have an iMac with similar hardware to yours - i5 6500 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 1867 MHz, 1 TB 7200-rpm - and I definitely notice how resource-heavy newer versions of OS X are. My first Apple computer was a Mac mini running Mac OS X Tiger and I never recall the operating system - particularly the user interface - being quite as resource-heavy as it is today.

[Leslieann]

What do you mean by "Mac experiments"?

I was running Mac laptop (nothing PC competes with the 11in Air) and built a hackintosh for a bit but it was more to see if it stuck.
It didn't.

One interesting thing to note...
Compared to Linux and Windows, Macs do not scale well. While they are very memory efficient (better than Linux and Windows), adding a faster processor, drive and even more memory did very little in terms of performance gains.

I'll probably be doing a write up on the experience soon, probably be a good read for those considering an OS swap as I'm well versed in Mac (and Hackintosh), Linux and Windows.

Interesting you say that. My "true" mac is a late 2010 MacBook Pro. Recently, I built a hackintosh for my mom: i5 6500 3.2 GHz, 16GB DDR4 2333 MHz, Samsung 850 Pro 512 GB, and the Asus H170 Pro. I expected it to be amazingly fast with OS X. You know... not mobile hardware like all Apple products except the Mac Pro (iMac, Mac Mini all use mobile versions of intel hardware and graphics).

I always first install xubuntu or some other linux to see how the system performs. It was sick fast. Fast boot, instant everything.

Then I installed Sierra. There is noticeable lag with EVERYTHING. *click* system preferences --> 4 second wait. *click* finder --> 3 second wait. *click* safari already open, new window --> 2 second wait.

Why is it not instant? Why the wait? It really feels like vista. I mean, why has OS X been so slow since Yosemite? Why is an UI make-over so taxing on the OS's performance?

I think Apple is gimping their systems intentionally, or at least ignoring it.
It's possible Apple is primarily focused on efficiency in order to facilitate the switch to ARM chips without a performance loss. Doing so however may be crippling high end performance.

[iLLucionist]

What do you mean by "Mac experiments"?

I was running Mac laptop (nothing PC competes with the 11in Air) and built a hackintosh for a bit but it was more to see if it stuck.
It didn't.

One interesting thing to note...
Compared to Linux and Windows, Macs do not scale well. While they are very memory efficient (better than Linux and Windows), adding a faster processor, drive and even more memory did very little in terms of performance gains.

I'll probably be doing a write up on the experience soon, probably be a good read for those considering an OS swap as I'm well versed in Mac (and Hackintosh), Linux and Windows.

Interesting you say that. My "true" mac is a late 2010 MacBook Pro. Recently, I built a hackintosh for my mom: i5 6500 3.2 GHz, 16GB DDR4 2333 MHz, Samsung 850 Pro 512 GB, and the Asus H170 Pro. I expected it to be amazingly fast with OS X. You know... not mobile hardware like all Apple products except the Mac Pro (iMac, Mac Mini all use mobile versions of intel hardware and graphics).

I always first install xubuntu or some other linux to see how the system performs. It was sick fast. Fast boot, instant everything.

Then I installed Sierra. There is noticeable lag with EVERYTHING. *click* system preferences --> 4 second wait. *click* finder --> 3 second wait. *click* safari already open, new window --> 2 second wait.

Why is it not instant? Why the wait? It really feels like vista. I mean, why has OS X been so slow since Yosemite? Why is an UI make-over so taxing on the OS's performance?

I think Apple is gimping their systems intentionally, or at least ignoring it.
It's possible Apple is primarily focused on efficiency in order to facilitate the switch to ARM chips without a performance loss. Doing so however may be crippling high end performance.

Interesting. I could completely see that being true.

Regards high end, let's be honest. Except for the outdated mac pro, all apple computers have mobile tech (intel, graphics). sure, they bench in high. But if you push macs to the limit, fan kicks in, they become hot, and they throttle.

When my i7-6700k does heavy crunching it is still inaudible. When I do "brew update" on my mac, I am afraid it will fly out of my window so loud as it is.

[iri]

My macbook is completely silent on brew update.

[iLLucionist]

My macbook is completely silent on brew update.

What MacBook do you have?

[iri]

My macbook is completely silent on brew update.

What MacBook do you have?

MacBook Pro, mid 2014, i7 3GHz, 16GB 1600Mhz DDR3, Intel Iris 1536MB, Yosemite.