[Techtalk] What distro?

[Rudy Zijlstra]

L J L wrote:
> Little Girl wrote:
>> Hey there,
>>
>> L J L wrote:
>>> Little Girl wrote:
>>>> L J L wrote:
>>
>> [Run command or Run application]
>>>> As it turns out, it wasn't an Ubuntu fool who did it. Debian is
>>>> missing it as well - at least it's not to be found anywhere in the
>>>> menu in debian-506-i386-netinst.iso. It can only be accessed via
>>>> an applet in the panel just like Ubuntu.
>>  
>>> That's odd.  I'm running Lenny, with KDE.  I bring up K Menu, and
>>> there it is, just above the "switch User" and below the "System
>>> Menu".
>>
>> Ah, yes, it's GNOME it's missing from. KDE always has it. (:
>
> Ah.  Well, probably part why I don't really care for Gnome... But it's 
> all personal taste in that.
>
>>>>> Compelling?  Not sure - if you like Kubuntu.  But I found it 
>>>>> frustrating, and I'm a long time Debian and Linux user.  It was 
>>>>> supposedly more user friendly, but it felt more like a Windows
>>>>> wannabe.
>>  
>>>> Lots of people feel that way. (:
>>  
>>> Heh. I'm glad to know I'm *not* the only one.  I've had Ubuntu
>>> advocates tell me I was delusional, and didn't know what I was
>>> talking about. :(
>>
>> No, you're definitely not delusional, and many before you have said
>> the same thing. The fact that it felt familiar immediately is one of
>> the reasons I chose Kubuntu when I switched over from Windows. (:
>>
>> You know that you can make Kubuntu look just like Ubuntu, right? Both
>> are pretty well interchangeable when it comes to looks as long as
>> you're willing to play around with their themes, colors, icons, and
>> other settings for a while.
>
> Yeah, but I actually tried both, and found both very annoying to 
> change easily other than purely cosmetic stuff.  The apparent 
> difference between them is what window manager is the default, and you 
> can always specify another, but the tools aren't always there.
>
>>>> I would actually enjoy a slower release cycle (as seen by the fact
>>>> that I still use Hardy Heron even though it's quite outdated).
>>>> What's the tiff about the Firefox name and branding?
>>  
>>> They won't bundle actual FireFox and Thunderbird, but genericized 
>>> versions called IceWeasel and IceDove.  They work fine, except when
>>> it comes to installing 3rd party extensions that want "FireFox" -
>>> like anything Adobe or Flash.
>>
>> Oh good heavens - so the folks who use those can't use Adobe or Flash?
>
> Not easily.  You have to tweak what the browser sends as the user 
> agent, and other arcane stuff, or install real FireFox, and mess with 
> /etc/alternatives/* settings (via update-alternatives) to tell stuff 
> where to go for the right default browser.
I do not get this... I am running with iceweasel on Debian squeeze. 
Flash etc are installed with no problem. And browsing flash sites is no 
problem at all.
I did not have to play with any setting.

>
>>>> I also tried out Kubuntu 10.04 in VirtualBox and decided that
>>>> they've restored enough of the Desktop functionality that I'm
>>>> willing to go ahead and upgrade to that. (:
>>  
>>> OK, I'm glad they fixed the problems,
>>
>> They restored enough original functionality to convince me that,
>> after a bit of tweaking, I should be able to get comfortable in it. (:
>
> Yaaay!
>
>>> Maybe they will figure out that the reason that people are
>>> migrating away from Windows is because they don't *want* a dumbed
>>> down interface...
>>
>> Heh, I didn't know that. I figured that most people make the switch
>> for security reasons. I remember spending a good chunk of my time
>> maintaining, updating, and running all sorts of anti-virus,
>> anti-trojan, anti-spyware, anti-adware, and anti-other-horrible-stuff
>> programs. Being able to just simply *use* my computer rather than
>> dedicating myself to maintaining it was a novel concept for me when I
>> first switched over to Kubuntu.
>
> That too.  The AV, virus/trojan/spyware stuff is a nightmare, and 
> Windows updates break things often.  Then running it is often BSOD and 
> corrupted files all over the place.
Not to speak about the trouble you have getting such a system back in 
working order...
>
>> There have to also be those who make the switch to save money. How
>> much does Windows cost nowadays? I know quite a few people who have
>> Windows even though the last price I remember for it was out of their
>> league, which brings me to the next reason: those many who most
>> likely have an illegal copy (which must be stressful). (:
>
> I don't know, since I haven't actually bought a copy in years.  The 
> only Windows computer I own runs Win 2k.  Other than one provided by a 
> job, I've been running Linux on my systems - desktop and laptop - for 
> the last ten years.  The last time my roomies bought an OEM XP license 
> for a system they were building, it was somewhere around $150.
I expect to be buying one soon again. I need some functionality, and the 
vendor only has a windows program. I asked whether he had a version that 
runs on an OS that is:
- stable
- not virus prone
- does not force me to spend long hours on management

nope. Only windows. Unfortunately, it is either that, or buy a 
prepackaged deal that costs about 10x as much and is also based on 
windows :(

Cheers,


Rudy