Jump to content

Get familiar with alternative Linux desktops


Alessandro17
 Share

12 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/2415-..._11-176034.html

 

Linux has proven amazingly flexible: after nearly 10 years of use, I'm still impressed by how the Linux operating system does exactly what I want on any type of hardware. Desktop customization is no exception; from the ultra-modern KDE and GNOME window managers to with the likes of Fluxbox and AfterStep, there's a Linux desktop to suit everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My new sig. LOL

 

Ubuntu, by far the best linux distro. Try 7.10: you'll be amazed.

I recommend the 32 bit version.

 

It really doesn't matter what distro anyone goes with, as long as they find one that suits there needs and is productive.

 

Opensource is the way to be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't like current version KDE or Gnome! I think even CDE is much better! I like Enlightenment (before 16), BeOS style, Step style....

 

I just looked up CDE, Common Desktop Environment. That is absolutely hideous, it is worse than Mac OS 9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
If only Linux could standardize things I'd like it a lot more.

 

Now that's a problem worth discussing.

I think one of the biggest flaws every distro has inherited is the standards varying in every distro. The lack of standards is most visible in package management. Every single one of them has its own repository with its own packaging format and so on so forth. I strongly believe packaging should be unified, thus less hussle wi th porting apps between distros, less server space, and users are more likely to find a rare application.

 

 

Desktop customisation IS flexible but it takes up waay more time than it should take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's a problem worth discussing.

I think one of the biggest flaws every distro has inherited is the standards varying in every distro. The lack of standards is most visible in package management. Every single one of them has its own repository with its own packaging format and so on so forth. I strongly believe packaging should be unified, thus less hussle wi th porting apps between distros, less server space, and users are more likely to find a rare application.

 

 

Desktop customisation IS flexible but it takes up waay more time than it should take.

Some people might argue that it's the little differences between all the distros that gives Linux its greatest strength - some features might be more suitable for some people than others, and the large selection of distros satisfies the varying needs of different users. I tend to agree about the issue of package management, but the thing is that if a distro is based on a particular format (DEB or RPM), then packages for other distros will probably work just fine. I can use a package designed for standard Debian in Ubuntu for example. Heck, sometimes people setup their repositories to point to Debian-only repositories in Ubuntu because of the excellent cross-compatability.

 

One thing I like about Ubuntu is that since it's the flagship mainstream distro, it's got the most exposure. Hence, if a company wants to release software in the form of a pre-compiled package, you can be sure they'll aim for Ubuntu support at least. Before, all the various distros made things difficult in determining a focal point for the Linux movement - Ubuntu, even if you don't particularly like it, has at least found that point of influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...