Ubuntu vs Linux Mint (In terms of speed)
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: October 17, 2009
Hey guys I'm wondering which one is better in terms of speed. Linux Mint or Ubuntu?
scientific linux vs ubuntu
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: August 6, 2010
Has any one experienced working with "Scientific linux"? what's the difference between these two linux distributions and is "Scientific linux" really better than ubuntu for scientists and science students?
Windows vs Linux
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: May 15, 2013
Just received a Micro Center flyer in the mail. I carefully looked for computers that had other than Windows or Mac OSes preinstalled. It was pretty pathetic since I found only 1 and that was a Chrome Book.
Windows 8 isn't popular, but M$ has a marketing genius (or a real heavy hand ) since HP & Dell (2 prominent manufactures in the flyer) sell their system with Ubuntu Linux installed.
Drunken Fight: Debian Vs Red Hat//Fedora Vs Slackware Vs Ubuntu Vs SuSE Vs Linux Mint
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: July 24, 2007
If Red Hat, Fedora, SuSE, Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu and Linux Mint were all drunk at a bar and had a fight, who would win?
Any difference between Ubuntu Minimal install vs. Arch Linux install?
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: June 2, 2010
Hello. I'm fairly new to the Linux world. I'm looking into building a lightweight system with either dwm or Openbox as my WM. I've tried using Arch to build a system, but I'm wondering if there are any differences using Ubuntu's minimal install cd and building an Openbox system.
Arch Linux "vanilla" or LXDE?
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: May 4, 2012
I have done a fresh installation of Arch Linux, this week. I am very happy with my progress, so far. The way I have it now, I boot to a text console, log in, and run startx to go into an OpenBox desktop with a tint2 panel. This is very nice, very simple, and very light on resources.
However, every time I want to do something new, it seems like I have to install something else and learn how to configure it. Yesterday, I discovered that LXDE is basically just OpenBox plus several more applications. The claim is that LXDE is also very light on resource consumption.
So, what is your take on this? Should I continue on my current tack, or add LXDE to maybe make things a little simpler? I want to hear the pros and cons of both approaches.
Is Arch Linux for you?
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: November 21, 2012
I just finally installed Arch Linux... After a year of decisions, I finally did it! After installing it on VM, where all looks gorgeous, a few times, I decided it! I removed Fedora, which I installed this week-end (poor Fedora), and I took 4 hours installing, configuring, doing other stuff and doing homework with it.
It's very nice to see that you can install a system without a graphical interface, and install a DE later (such as XFCE, as I did). But... according to the KISS definition, Arch has nothing. I thought it wasn't a problem, as you can just do pacman -S packagename and install something, like pacman -S firefox. But... Not only happened with applications, of course. I stayed... 2 hours of those 4 to configure the WiFi network and doing odd scripts for systemd, and discovering that neither NetworkManager nor Wicd worked, I saw another problem... The sound, how the hell I configure the sound. And the printer. And the multimedia keys. And all!
It's not a problem if you have
Arch Linux vs Windows 7
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: April 12, 2011
Every once in a while, I'll look at a Linux distro and get urges to install it. In the past, I've used Ubuntu (both gnome and kde) quite a bit so I think I could handle using Arch Linux from what I've seen. Actually, I've even virtualboxed it and had no problem!
However, I wanted my desktop to remain windows (basically for gaming). But right now I'm on a laptop I use for just about anything. The problem is that while it is my laptop, my girlfriend uses this quite a bit as well. I'm getting super urges to install Arch Linux, but I want to justify that urge to her! A lot of the reason is because I completely optimize and "pimp out" any OS I have, so this Windows is actually super nice looking and quite fast (as fast as windows can get I guess.)
I'm basically wondering what some of you power users think about Arch Linux vs Windows 7 directly. Is there any sort of speed test out there, and what is the compatibility of certain laptop devices that come with it (such as
Arch Linux My first week
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: January 27, 2013
So I finally did it -- my first Arch install. No I didn't abandon Ubuntu -- far from it -- I just wanted to see how the other side lives in a "more advanced distro". Here are my general impressions for any one else considering a similar experiment
Arch -- it can be complicated. I've used Ubuntu for a long time - 5 or more years and really like the command line. Most terminal commands are not foreign to me, and if they are, I'm very comfortable with how to find help. My first impression is that you actually have to configure everything about Arch and your hardware manually (well almost everything). The Arch beginner guide wiki is very well written -- don't skip any steps, however its somewhat incomplete?? if you have problems with your hardware. Getting the main system up and running particularly if you have an ethernet cable is actually pretty quick. Your left with a tty terminal for a log in. But that is where basically the guide ends and a little bit of the work (a
Arch linux dual boot
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: January 10, 2013
I am curious about dipping my toes into arch linux and was wondering if a dual boot with a computer already running ubuntu would be possible, and if so how I would go about doing this.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10