Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Support Us

Top Posters

I need a non-debian based linux distro

I have a new laptop to work on. It is a dell inspirion 1100 with a 2.1 GHz celeron (or something close to that) with 1gb of RAM and a 60gb hard drive. I have tried installing a ton of ubuntu derivatives and none of them work correctly. I guess that is a common problem with this particular laptop, something with the bios and video drives, or something...whatever.

So if figure if i avoid the debian based distros, i should be good and i have indeed got mac pup and puppy linux to work (along with XP), so i know this computer still works. However, I don't really like any of those operating systems. I hate windows and puppy linux is a bit too lightweight. It does seem this computer can handle a bit more than those.

Any suggestions on ones to check out?

Comments

  • TibleTible Registered
    Arch is a good way to go, install what you need or want and keep it as light or heavy a system as you want.

    If your opposed to a pure Arch system or don't have the experience needed then maybe try Fedora, Mageia, and Manjaro (they are all pretty user-friendly).

    Just depends on personal preference. Since you normally like ubuntu, there are alot of ways to go, but most don't have that "unity" feel to them.
  • I'll try fedora first. I'm not overly picky about the set up of the style of the operating system, as long as I am not just typing commands into terminal
  • plustwoplustwo Registered
    distrowatch.com has a lot of distros to choose from.
  • Manjaro is great and it just works...
  • while it is debian (not ubuntu) based, AntiX utilizes a custom kernel in an attempt to work on older hardware that other distributions may not be supporting. It has a desktop experience similar to puppy.
  • Ill throw open SUSE into the ring. Not debian based. Great performance. Easy setup

    Sent from my LG-VM696 using Tapatalk 2
  • I have a new laptop to work on. It is a dell inspirion 1100 with a 2.1 GHz celeron (or something close to that) with 1gb of RAM and a 60gb hard drive. I have tried installing a ton of ubuntu derivatives and none of them work correctly. I guess that is a common problem with this particular laptop, something with the bios and video drives, or something...whatever.

    So if figure if i avoid the debian based distros, i should be good and i have indeed got mac pup and puppy linux to work (along with XP), so i know this computer still works. However, I don't really like any of those operating systems. I hate windows and puppy linux is a bit too lightweight. It does seem this computer can handle a bit more than those.

    Any suggestions on ones to check out?

    I like the idea of Manjaro and another Bridge Linux.
  • wchouser3wchouser3 Registered
    I'm only going to say this once: Manjaro....well....ok, I'll say it twice: Manjaro! It's an Arch based distro, meaning your days of fooling around with third party ppas are OVER! I would say Arch it's self, but unless you've got a solid, and I mean solid understanding of partitioning, installing, drivers, and such...Arch may turn you off from Linux all together. Manjaro gives you the benefit of Arch while making it easy as easy to install and run as the other distros like Ubuntu.
  • MadmanRBMadmanRB Registered
    openSUSE is my suggestion
  • sthlmsthlm Registered
    Manjaro
  • MadmanRBMadmanRB Registered
    Why do people keep on recommending arch based distros for newcommers?
    I mean if you dont mind having to recompile each time something updates in AUR I guess its okay but I really dont have the patience for such a messy updating method.
    I mean really I use google chrome and wine piplelight and I find arch very unsuitable.
  • wchouser3wchouser3 Registered
    MadmanRB wrote:
    Why do people keep on recommending arch based distros for newcommers?
    I mean if you dont mind having to recompile each time something updates in AUR I guess its okay but I really dont have the patience for such a messy updating method.
    I mean really I use google chrome and wine piplelight and I find arch very unsuitable.

    I use those things too, I've had no problems with it. The beautiful thing about the AUR is that you don't even have to consider the fact that there's any compiling being done. The AUR is not a repository. It's a registry of Packagebuilds, which is basically a script (recipe) for building packages on the fly. Now, let's say you don't even want to know you're doing any building. Install a helper like "Pacaur" or Yaourt. When you enter the command: Pacaur -Syyu, ALL packages are updated, repo, and AUR.

    Manjaro has an amazing tool called Pamac, which is a GUI that combines pacman and the AUR. It will automatically update any and all of these packages.

    The reason I recommend it is: let's say you're using linux lite, or Ubuntu or Mint, and you want to use a program like Handbrake, Qbittorrent, or something else, not included in the stock repos. You have to go track down the third party ppa, and install it. With an Arch based distro this is not the case because if it's not in the stock repos, it is in the AUR. If enough interest is given to a package in the AUR, it gets added to the stock (community) repo.

    The truth is, if Manjaro wasn't around, I wouldn't recommend Arch based distros to newcomers. But as it is, Manjaro offers the benefit of Arch without having to learn to build it from scratch. Try it in a virtual machine. Give it an honest go. It may just change your mind. You'll find that for most packages (certainly Chrome, and pipelight) the packagebuilds in the AUR are maintained just as well as they would be in any distribution's stock repos.
  • MadmanRBMadmanRB Registered
    Yes but packages from AUR still need to compiled before using them and depending on the speed of your processor and system it could take several hours just to keep a single package up to date.
    Compare that to mere seconds with a ppa or community repo.
    Sorry but I regard distros like Arch and Manjaro too big for the average user, if yhou love spending countless hours compiling a single package more power to you I have better things to do with my life.
    Arch and distros like it are truly made for sado masochists.
  • wchouser3wchouser3 Registered
    MadmanRB wrote:
    Yes but packages from AUR still need to compiled before using them and depending on the speed of your processor and system it could take several hours just to keep a single package up to date.
    Compare that to mere seconds with a ppa or community repo.
    Sorry but I regard distros like Arch and Manjaro too big for the average user, if yhou love spending countless hours compiling a single package more power to you I have better things to do with my life.
    Arch and distros like it are truly made for sado masochists.

    I think you may have had a bad experience in the distant past, or something. I run Arch on an old laptop with 512meg of ram, and a first generation Celeron processor. Most AUR builds take less than 2 minutes to compile, and run absolutely perfect 100 % of the time with the extreme exception of either "wine-silverlight" or "wine-pipelight" which I admit do take a about an hour to compile. For the most part, though....this is not the case. I run an update every day and the average time it takes to update is less than 3 minutes which is less than Ubuntu, I might add.

    Like I said...give it an honest try before you pass judgement. You may be surprised.
  • bartosbartos DonatorDonator
    Donator
    I would suggest Crunchbang. It is Debian based and light wieght using Openbox.
  • wchouser3wchouser3 Registered
    bartos wrote:
    I would suggest Crunchbang. It is Debian based and light wieght using Openbox.
    I like that one too, but this person wants a "non-debian" based distro
  • bartosbartos DonatorDonator
    Donator
    I understand his title said 'non-debian" but in his write up, he was saying of having trouble with ubuntu based distros.
    There is a difference between debian and ubuntu based even though ubuntu is based on debian. I find Debian a cleaner base.

    my 2 cents
    wchouser3 wrote:
    bartos wrote:
    I would suggest Crunchbang. It is Debian based and light wieght using Openbox.
    I like that one too, but this person wants a "non-debian" based distro
  • MadmanRBMadmanRB Registered
    wchouser3 wrote:
    MadmanRB wrote:
    Yes but packages from AUR still need to compiled before using them and depending on the speed of your processor and system it could take several hours just to keep a single package up to date.
    Compare that to mere seconds with a ppa or community repo.
    Sorry but I regard distros like Arch and Manjaro too big for the average user, if yhou love spending countless hours compiling a single package more power to you I have better things to do with my life.
    Arch and distros like it are truly made for sado masochists.

    I think you may have had a bad experience in the distant past, or something. I run Arch on an old laptop with 512meg of ram, and a first generation Celeron processor. Most AUR builds take less than 2 minutes to compile, and run absolutely perfect 100 % of the time with the extreme exception of either "wine-silverlight" or "wine-pipelight" which I admit do take a about an hour to compile. For the most part, though....this is not the case. I run an update every day and the average time it takes to update is less than 3 minutes which is less than Ubuntu, I might add.

    Like I said...give it an honest try before you pass judgement. You may be surprised.

    Yes but thats updating standard packages, I was pretty much told flat off in the manjaro forum that if I want to get updates to my packages I installed from AUR I would need to compile each time.
  • wchouser3wchouser3 Registered
    bartos wrote:
    I understand his title said 'non-debian" but in his write up, he was saying of having trouble with ubuntu based distros.
    There is a difference between debian and ubuntu based even though ubuntu is based on debian. I find Debian a cleaner base.

    my 2 cents
    wchouser3 wrote:
    bartos wrote:
    I would suggest Crunchbang. It is Debian based and light wieght using Openbox.
    I like that one too, but this person wants a "non-debian" based distro

    Oh, ok....I see. Yea, I agree it would be a more solid choice in terms of stability. Debian based distros have by far the strictest package release policies.
Sign In or Register to comment.