Try Vanillux;
http://vanillux.org/

It's a friend's project. APT based but uses Gnome 3. Still beta, so they'd appreciate anyone that uses it and gives feedback. You don't even need to download an ISO and can convert your existing Ubuntu install to Vanillux.


In Ubuntu, do this in terminal;

Source: http://wiki.vanillux.org/wiki/HOW-TO_Insta...lux_from_Ubuntu

What the commands does;;
Adds Vanillux sources and a secure keyring, removes all the Ubuntu-related stuff and then instalsl it's own packages.

They have quite a good-looking roadmap. It's planned as a rolling-release, so what their doing is basically taking your Ubuntu and converting it back to something closer to Debian, but easier to use and maintain. They also seem to have their own Testing, Unstable, Upstream and Vendor repos.



This post has been edited by G-17: Jul 26 2011, 09:23 AM

Why not? I have a pair of Xeon procs (2010) in my main workstation and I still run ScrotWM, Openbox and Xmonad on it. The difference between a DE and lightweight WM might not be as pronounced as on older hardware, but there still is a difference you can (and will) notice.

Hell, on my old studio's 8 core Mac Pro, I still installed Xmonad and replaced Leopard's front-end. It was much snappier than Apple's own "optimized for the hardware" DE.

Of course, you can install KDE4 or Gnome3 and still get more than decent performance. No one's stopping you.

Regarding kernel memory footprint;
3.0 on a fully functional WM consumes around 5 -7 mb less ram than 2.6.37/38/39 on my netbook (i686 32bit install). Haven't tested with 64bit on my workstation or secondary desktop yet (waiting for some other libs to transition). Kernel weight is hugely dependent on the drivers/modules you require it to load. So far, with the WMs I tend to run, I've never had any desktop (i686, pae or amd64) use more than 105mb RAM on a fresh boot. Usually around 40mb+ for a 32bit desktop, 50 - 60mb on a 32bit notebook (wireless and bluetooth daemons) and around 90 - 100mb for a 64 bit desktop (with Nvidia proprietary binary drivers and patched ALSA modules for my Asus Xonar loaded, mind you). The last kernel I've used that was lighter than 3.0 was probably 2.6.31, if I remember correctly. Note: Comparizon done on Vanilla and Zen kernels. Recompiled kernels would be even lighter.

This post has been edited by G-17: Jul 26 2011, 11:07 PM

As I've mentioned many times before, I have almost zero experience with ATI on Linux (or any OS for that matter), but maybe you can point me to the SDK sources/packages/page and I'll see if I can consult some people or maybe run a virtualized simulation or something. No promises, though, and it'll probably be after working hours.

Sorry for being so useless on the ATI front. I have no machines with ATI cards and I've not played with SDKs in ages.



There are other alternatives like GRML, Crux, Gentoo, Slackware. The benefit of Arch is that it provides a beginner-friendly wiki guide. Either way, I would not recommend any of these to Chyan at the moment.

A good choice. COmes in bothe Ubuntu and Debian-based varients these days, and they're classic Gnome implementation is better than most distros. I personally like their FluxBox Edition.

Welcome to the tiling club!! : D

This post has been edited by G-17: Jul 27 2011, 01:36 PM

Would be good if I could see the error log, or at least a part of it. For all you know it just might be a missing library or you might just need to tweak the makefile a bit. Debian's currently in a state of flux with the transition to a multiarch base (for Testing and Unstable branches), so some libraries might have been relocated to different folders/locations. I'm currently suffering from broken libasound2-plugin-equal (alsaequal) thanks to that.

Anyways, I'll take a look at the source later and see if I can make out anything.

*crosses fingers*

Nope, that's just a misconception concocted by the fanbois who think Arch = religion.
I have an Arch and a Debian (GRML) install on different partitions on the same computer. Both use the same WM, same journaling (root=ext4, /home=xfs), same swap size, same apps, same kernel versions (2.6.39-ARCH vs 2.6.39-aptosid) Both boot in the same amount of time (actually, my GRML boots around a couple of seconds faster), consume around the same amount of RAM, and take up around the same HDD space. Debian tends to install more Xorg libraries than Arch, but you can easily remove them with smxi (google it) or manually via aptitude. Arch's package manager (pacman) is faster than apt, but lacks gpg signing. Both also use a single rc file for configuration (GRML uses rc-file instead of Debian's default sysv-rc).

You can apply the K.I.S.S philosophy to either.

This post has been edited by G-17: Jul 31 2011, 11:26 PM

Sorry, I haven't gotten round to trying out the SDK you linked me to. TBH, I completely forgot >_<
My net's slow right now (as is the rest of Malaysia, looking at the Broadband/P2P forum) so I can't download it here, but I have most of today off so I'll try it out as soon as I get home to Singapore later in the evening. Once again, sorry.

This post has been edited by G-17: Aug 1 2011, 11:13 AM

@ Patent
I'm sorry but I wasn't online yesterday. Did you resolve your issue yet?
At first glance, it seems to be a problem with your bash config.

And this was my response to the whole thing;
http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/post/135268/#p135268

Seriously, people who argue about distros do Linux no favors whatsoever. They're like those anime otaku who worship pictures of 2D women (who all look like walking embryos, fyi) just because they failed at getting a gf in real life.

I've used Arch on and off for a good few years now, before it become "popular", and trust me, despite being a decent distro, they have tons of trolls over at the Arch forums, more so than most distros if you take a userbase:troll ratio. Only difference is, they troll other places, not their own. Whenever you see a write up or comparo that includes Arch and it doesn't end up the "winner" I guarantee you'll see the comments section flooded by butthurt Archtards. Same goes for forums. Example; If there's a thread titled "Fedora or Ubuntu, which one is better for my system?", there'll definitely be some person who'll post "Arch", as if he's a blind halfwit who can't even read the question.

Sure, it happens with other distro users as well, but none can compare to Arch and Mac fanboys in that regard.

Personally, if you were Ubuntu forum maintainer and saw a great number of Arch trolls posting, you should be somewhat chuffed. Your distro has to be doing something right if you've got this many trolls who signed up just to talk about something totally unrelated.

---

Added on August 13, 2011, 8:23 pm
Can you actually install and administer a working Sorcerer/SourgeMage setup? It's a process that requires considerable dexterity and patience.

There are those kinds of jobs available, btw,,, mostly for the server side. You'll probably require a bunch of certifications from RedHat to be even considered eligible for an interview, though.

This post has been edited by G-17: Aug 13 2011, 11:45 PM

Add that to the Tiling thread too. I'm curious as to what you did as I have never had that problem before on any distro (not even ScrotWM runing in OSX)


I don't use KDE, but yeah, I've often heard of users disabling Nepomuk to free up resources. What is Nepomuk, anyway? Long-lost cousin of Alvin & the Chimpmunks?... or is it some Thai kickboxer?

As for the Gnome vs KDE thing, it always goes back and forth. Many people switched to Gnome when version 2 came out cos KDE3 was bland, then when KDE 4 came out, they went back, only to be plagued by stability problems, so they go back to Gnome again, then whe KDE 4.3 or 4.4 came out, they all went back to KDE to play with the new Bespin themes and icons, then when Elementary came out, they went back to Gnome, then when the devs announce Gnome3 and Unity, they go back to KDE again. I don't see it ending, really.

Personally, I think QT (QTcurve in particular) is much more modular than GTK2 and GTK3, but the problem is app integration since many of the more popular ones use a GTK backend. If only they found a way to get a decent lightweight suite running on QT apps without the need for KDE and all those annoying app names that begin with K. GTK3 is definitely a step-up from GTK2+, but with Gnome being in its current state of flux and turmoil, it might be some time before we see anything good come of it. Don't think it'll top QT, though.

But hey, what do I know... I'm a ncurses guy.

This post has been edited by G-17: Aug 14 2011, 02:37 AM

^Hmm, strange. I thought Xlib and XCB would automatically perfor the integration of font paths. I don't need to do that even Gentoo, Sorcerer or Arch.... Only BSD's ask for xset.

Although I usually set my preferred font path to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts

Edit:
Oh, maybe it's because I have my font paths in my xorg.conf (yeah, I'm old fashioned) that I don't need to do xset.

This post has been edited by G-17: Aug 14 2011, 02:51 AM

^And there you summarized my problem with KDE people. It's not that I want to see KDE go lightweight or adopt a less resource-intensive backend or whatever since there are other non-resource-related needs KDE fails to meet when it comes to the way I compute (KDE's "tiling" doesn't hold a candle compared to a real tiler).

What I like/want is QT (which is already quite light, comparatively sopeaking) native engine support from the more popular apps. Remember, I said QT, not KDE. You can keep your Konqueror and your KAlgebraand your KinkyKelly, I have no interest in the K-suite (though I admit K3B is damn good). I want the of the QT engine only. KDE and QT are not one and the same.

Problem is, that's a 2-way street. We need the developers of apps like FF, Gimp, Thunar, etc to make their programs QT friendly, and I doubt they have the resources for that. Sad, but true. I once tried QTcurve and made a damn nice *box-style desktop. If only I (or someone more skilled) could make a standalone light WM out of QT.

This post has been edited by G-17: Aug 15 2011, 06:39 AM

^No, both architectures are equally stable at this point in time. Even Adobe 64bit Flash is usable. His processor clearly supports 64it, so it all boils down to how much RAM he's got. If you're running standard out-of-the-box Ubuntu, then I say stick aith x86 if you've got 3gb ram or less.

Good for you!! Welcome to the land of good design, clean code and proper documentation, unlike some other operating systems (cough... Linux ... cough)



Depends. What brand/make is your wireless chipset?
What sources are you using, Stable, Testing or Sid? (post your sources.list if possible)
What kernel? (Vanilla Debian, Zen, Liquorix?)

^Well, I suppose it's not for us to judge. Ubuntu's trying to lure new Linux users. Whether Unity helps in that or not remains to be seen. I still think it's a fairly decent distro under the hood (mini.iso install).

What I don't understand is why they moved the minimize,enlarge,close buttons to the left. I could never get used to that, despite spending years with Mac OS. It just feels so unnatural (for a right handed person) flicking the mouse to the left side.

The other thing is the size of the unity panel in proportion to the taskbar on top. Their pronounced difference in size and symmetry shows (imho) the design team's failure in grasping basic design sensibilities.

This post has been edited by G-17: Sep 2 2011, 08:54 PM

1 - Both will end up the same. With core, you install the base, and then update to most recent versions of packages. With netinstall, the installer downloads the latest versions of packages.
I personally prefer netinstall, but depends on your connection, though. Always use cable (dhcp) first, and download additional drivers later if required.

2 - If it's a fresh install without any windows patition, just have the partitioner use the entire disk. If you're sharing (dual-boot) with Windows, then just use the old space you had the broken Arch installed on.

3 - Select both base and base-devel. You'll probably need to use make, cmake, automake later, which are all under base-devel. This page contains a brief description of packages. Unselect those you're sure you don't need. http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?repo=Co...ll&sort=pkgname ... Arch is actually piss easy to install. A lot of it is just common sense.

This post has been edited by G-17: Sep 8 2011, 05:48 PM

Technically, you can use the same partitions if you plan to use the same file/journaling system as before. Personally, I always do a clean reformat, regardless of distro or mountpoints (unless I have a /home folder I want to re-use). Maybe I'm old-fashioned.

CDM ftw!!

LightDM looks good though. Most important for me is whether it will let me change the fonts or not. I always hated GDM's inability to render .bdf fonts. I don't like having an ununiformed desktop experience, and hate having to see unsharp generic truetype sans crap in the DM before I log into my WM with beautiful pixel-sharp fonts.

^Hmm, I haven't encountered this kind of error outside SAMBA. I doubt that the.Trash folder is corrupted.

If I'm not mistaken, Nautilus also names it's trash folders like that. Trash-1000 for first user, Trash-1001 for second...etc.

Have you tried opening thunar as root and accessing the media card? Also, try checking the permissions? (I think in thunar you right-click and go to properties)

Well, first we need to narrow it down a bit. Have you tried downloading a file of similar size via another client, or http direct download.
Try that first. I you still get an error relaged to drive space, then we'll know for sure the problem is not Transmission. Also worth checking where Transmission puts your torrent files into..