Why GNU/Linux Rocks

[devilock76]

The way GDM(Gnome Desktop Manager) worked in Gnome2, is during login, you had a dropdown box you could could select your desktop with. I imagine Gnome3 is similar.




Something like that should work. In Debian I think it's xfce-desktop going from memory. You could look it up on the web for doing it in fedora.

Stock fedora should be GDM, once you enter/select your username you should see a selection box at the bottom that specifies your WM/DE environment, it will probably say default or last, as in your default choice or the last one you used. If you click on that it should expand to all recognized WM installed on the system. Install a lot of them and play.

Ken

[devilock76]

It's all personal preference. If you love the look of Win7, KDE might be a good desktop for you. I was a big fan of Gnome2, but it's no more. I liked the balance of eye candy, features, weight. Here's my choices in rough order...

Xfce
E17
OpenBox
Lxde
Awesome

Nothing else ranks. Unity and Gnome3 don't work because I need a minimum of 2 panels. I like the classic computing paradigm, and deviations from that displease me. KDE just boils down to looks. I really dislike QT styling, and using KDE is like flying an airplane there's so many options. I'd be willing to deal with the options if it weren't for QT.

Try a few, and see what you like. Lets say KDE. Install the KDE desktop, log out, then when you go to log back in, you can pick which desktop environment you want to use. You can have all of them installed, and log in to the one you feel like at any given time. My Debian install has Xfce and E17.

Funny most of the time I make KDE look more like OS X, I often install Cairo-dock for that purpose.

Ken

[lxskllr]

So if I install one of these and log out, it will automatically prompt me for which one I want to run each time I start up my computer by default, or do I have to use some other program, kind of like how Grub handles dualbooting etc?

The way GDM(Gnome Desktop Manager) worked in Gnome2, is during login, you had a dropdown box you could could select your desktop with. I imagine Gnome3 is similar.

How do I go about downloading these? Do I just yum install Xfce?

Something like that should work. In Debian I think it's xfce-desktop going from memory. You could look it up on the web for doing it in fedora.

[sgreger1]

It's all personal preference. If you love the look of Win7, KDE might be a good desktop for you. I was a big fan of Gnome2, but it's no more. I liked the balance of eye candy, features, weight. Here's my choices in rough order...

Xfce
E17
OpenBox
Lxde
Awesome

Nothing else ranks. Unity and Gnome3 don't work because I need a minimum of 2 panels. I like the classic computing paradigm, and deviations from that displease me. KDE just boils down to looks. I really dislike QT styling, and using KDE is like flying an airplane there's so many options. I'd be willing to deal with the options if it weren't for QT.

Try a few, and see what you like. Lets say KDE. Install the KDE desktop, log out, then when you go to log back in, you can pick which desktop environment you want to use. You can have all of them installed, and log in to the one you feel like at any given time. My Debian install has Xfce and E17.

So if I install one of these and log out, it will automatically prompt me for which one I want to run each time I start up my computer by default, or do I have to use some other program, kind of like how Grub handles dualbooting etc?



How do I go about downloading these? Do I just yum install Xfce? And from what I gather, people don't like Gnome, which is what Fedora comes with, why? It is pretty bare bones. I mean it's a bland desktop, then on the left hand side you can bring up the favorites panel, or you can click over to applications and find what you need. Is this really that bad? It seems pretty simple and sleek to me, but I havn't tried anything else.


I have pretty much unlimited resources and a 27 inch monitor so not really worried about resources, I am just curious what really could be added to Gnome other than unecessary widgets? I am going to check out Xfce and see how that works, assuming I can easily transition back.


Edit; Just checked out screenshots of Xfce, I dont't think that's for me, has too much going on. I odn't like the start menu style menus either. I think i'm goign to stick with whatever fedora came with, I only need like 4 things on the favorites panel and everything else I access from command line anyways, I like a clean desktop with nothing really else on it.

It is kind of annoying when I go to click "back" on the browser and it mistakenly opens the shortcuts thing which it's only supposed to do when you move your mouse to the top left hand corner, but it's not too bad.

[lxskllr]

It's all personal preference. If you love the look of Win7, KDE might be a good desktop for you. I was a big fan of Gnome2, but it's no more. I liked the balance of eye candy, features, weight. Here's my choices in rough order...

Xfce
E17
OpenBox
Lxde
Awesome

Nothing else ranks. Unity and Gnome3 don't work because I need a minimum of 2 panels. I like the classic computing paradigm, and deviations from that displease me. KDE just boils down to looks. I really dislike QT styling, and using KDE is like flying an airplane there's so many options. I'd be willing to deal with the options if it weren't for QT.

Try a few, and see what you like. Lets say KDE. Install the KDE desktop, log out, then when you go to log back in, you can pick which desktop environment you want to use. You can have all of them installed, and log in to the one you feel like at any given time. My Debian install has Xfce and E17.

[devilock76]

Can you gyus help me understand a little more about what Gnome/KDE are and which is better?

From what I gather, Fedora comes with Gnome as the desktop, but then in the file installer it also has stuff for KDE desktops. Are all of these items interchangeable, or do you hav eto "choose a desktop type", either KDE or Gnome? And what really are the differences, will the whole desktop look different, are we tlaking major changes, individual programs? I am just still not clear on what the whole Gnome vs. KDE thing.

Gnome vs KDE is pretty much Coke vs Pepsi. As is deb vs rpm kind of a Coke vs Pepsi thing.

We all know Arch is of course RC Cola, or Dr. Pepper, in other words it rules all, hehehehe...

Anyway that being said, KDE is typically a touch more bloated and it also uses the QT libraries/source which is not under the GNU license so it is not considered as free and open as Gnome.

At the end thought it is an asthetics thing. Gnome is nice, Gnome 3, well I am yet to see it be nice. KDE I feel has more customization options, better graphics, more more modern feel, better keyboard interaction.

KDE is still a slightly larger memory footprint than even Gnome 3 I think though, takes a bit longer to load.

I like KDE on a system where resources and screen real estate are a a non issue for the WM/DE equation.

On reduced footprint systems I recommend...

Fluxbox
LXDE
XFCE
IceWM
FVWM (which is ugly at first but can be made AWESOME)
WindowMaker

and for the truly sadistic

EvilWM

Ken

[sgreger1]

Can you gyus help me understand a little more about what Gnome/KDE are and which is better?

From what I gather, Fedora comes with Gnome as the desktop, but then in the file installer it also has stuff for KDE desktops. Are all of these items interchangeable, or do you hav eto "choose a desktop type", either KDE or Gnome? And what really are the differences, will the whole desktop look different, are we tlaking major changes, individual programs? I am just still not clear on what the whole Gnome vs. KDE thing.

[devilock76]

My problem with E17 is the crappy panels. I'd like Gnome2 panels with E17 windows. I'd be pretty happy with that.

When G OS first came out it used E17 as it's default desktop. It was highly customized but was a very impressive implementation of it. The distro seems to be fizzling fast and also switched to Gnome for its desktop. Although it did happen to be Ubuntu based.

I used to be more on the fence on the KDE vs Gnome thing, then Gnome 3 came out, hehehehe.

Ken

[lxskllr]

My problem with E17 is the crappy panels. I'd like Gnome2 panels with E17 windows. I'd be pretty happy with that.

[devilock76]

To expound, I basically have four main options to have a DAW work station (IMO) built from Linux. And although it is a DAW it does have to fill some basic office workstation and even coding duties. These choices are basically Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, or Arch based. Those distros have the most "spins" that support music as a special function. At the same time they have large user groups, large base of support, great documentation.

So here is where they fall for me...

1. Debian, I like Debian, always have, I find it to be overshadowed by ubuntu as far as the user base lately, not as bleeding edge as I would like though unless I use unstable and unstable seems more unstable than I am comfortable with.
2. Ubuntu, not as bleeding edge as I would like, similar to Debian in my reasoning. It's community though is impressive.
3. Fedora, works great and the Planet CCRMA repos are great, however every 14 months I am probably looking at a full reinstall and I have to wait till Planet CCRMA catches up with a real time kernel version for each release. Fedora has one advantage to my alternative purposes as of the four it is the best environment for Java development. Then again I might call that a negative as well. However if I truly must have a Java dev environment I would probably just go ahead and virtualize a Fedora install for just those purposes. Fedora is bleeding edge though with good stability and a great community.
4. Arch, bleeding edge, less need to spin off to a realtime kernel to meet my needs. Plus with a rolling release it is not likely I will ever need to do a full reinstall to "keep up". That last item is a big deal as regardless of the distro setting up for realtime audio (realtime kernel or not) is time consuming, and can be a process of trial and error for each system. Arch is actually one of the quickest to do that on and the least likely to force me to have to redo that setup process.

However that being said I can do just about anything from my Arch distro "better" than on the others (except Java development, but oh well, that is a rare thing for me and I can virtualize fedora). On the running VBOX on a DAW setup arch has a plus as not needing to use a special purpose realtime kernel that is different from the main distro kernel I only need to worry about one set of kmod's for VBOX. Nor do I have to reboot from working on DAW functions to open a virtualize session (as I would not want to run VBOX against a full real time kernel).

What I am saying is this. And sorry if I sound preachy or like I am making a sales pitch. Yes the initial install of Arch is a longer learning curve than other mainstream distros, but once done, a lot of special purpose configuration is easier and the rolling release makes it usually a one time only process for a given machine. In the scope of things that actually makes Arch a time saver no matter the task you are doing. Also Arch so far beats just about every distro I have tried in performance, although Fedora is a close second when you look at boot time. In fact Arch is the only distro where I had no issues using KDE as my desktop while running multi track sessions with heavy DSP load on the system.

Yeah I know KDE, I got the memory to spare for it and when and artist is looking over your shoulder it just looks nicer. I don't feel like spending the effort to make Fluxbox look pretty to non geeks, and Fluxbox is one of my preferred WM's and E17 is just not stable enough IMO to be used with production functionality. Although I do really like E17.

Ken

[devilock76]

Obviously for specific purposes, where you want a build for a very clear and defined purpose or piece of software/hardware, than something like Arch is great. If you are just looking for an OS to run your system on and do a variety of things, than a more general purpose distro may be the right answer. Archo probably makes running a DAW great and highly tuned to your purposes, but some people are using their machines as more general purpose machines or lack the expertise to make a specialised setup for one specific purpose.

@ Shiki,

The training wheels on a bike come off?


Mind = Blown.

Yup but it is not just about special purpose use, it is about choice, which at is core is the reason are even talking about linux.

Ken

[sgreger1]

My original statement stands. And I would rather be free to build for the ultimate in performance for my DAW.

Ken

Obviously for specific purposes, where you want a build for a very clear and defined purpose or piece of software/hardware, than something like Arch is great. If you are just looking for an OS to run your system on and do a variety of things, than a more general purpose distro may be the right answer. Archo probably makes running a DAW great and highly tuned to your purposes, but some people are using their machines as more general purpose machines or lack the expertise to make a specialised setup for one specific purpose.

@ Shiki,

The training wheels on a bike come off?


Mind = Blown.

[sgreger1]

Wow I just stumbled across this list of Ubuntu games. I have NO idea there were this many high quality, KICK ASS freewar games for Linux. Check some of this shit out

http://www.penguspy.com/#/All/free_a...view=1/limit=0


0 A.D.:

http://www.penguspy.com/0-a-d/

Worms clone:

http://www.penguspy.com/hedgewars/

Wurm Online looks awesome too:

http://www.penguspy.com/wurm-online/

And 0ad:

[devilock76]

Let me put it this way. I'd rather be the engineer designing the engine than the guy working at the foundry turning ore into aluminum.

My original statement stands. And I would rather be free to build for the ultimate in performance for my DAW.

Ken

[devilock76]

I think Ubuntu and Fedora, being the easier of the Linux's, are what is responsible for the fact that Linux is the world’s fastest growing desktop OS – up 64% in 9 months (Yes, I know Linux is a Kernel, not really an OS)

For me, I would have never been able to get into linux if only arch were around, or if I started on arch. By strating with Fedora it gave me a taste, and now I spend a lot of my time trying to learn more about it. As I become more proficient, i will likely move on to Arch of some other "real" Linux distro, but if it weren't for the starter distro's like Fedora than I would have never even given it a shot.

Without training wheels, much fewer people would know how to ride bikes.

Fondly thinking back 15 years ago, my first linux install, Debian, using a bunch of floppys to turn an old 386 into a file server...

Ken