Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

wolfizzi · 2009-05-13 07:20:08

I saw this Distrowatch article when it came out, and wondered if one could use Philip's CLI installation script on a minimal Debian installation. After looking at the CB install script, it looks to me like it would not be impossible to do the same thing on a cli debian install. The script would need some modification. The hardest part would be to determine which debian repos to add, then determine how the packages names and versions have to be revised. After that, in principle, it should work. But I'm not a linux expert, so maybe someone else might be able to tell us if this would work.

As for the Arch/Debian debate, I'm intrigued by Arch, but I have always loved Debian. I like the debian way of managing packages. I don't think using a Debian base, as opposed to an Ubuntu one would make the distro any harder to use. If the packages are the same, there should be no difference. We just have to include the non-free stuff Ubuntu provides.

fhsm · 2009-05-13 12:03:05

Debian +1

matador · 2009-05-14 10:20:12

matador wrote:

I might be trying this weekend, but the likely result is going to be #! re-installed after a few hours of dead-end work...

Well...

As I arrived home early yesterday, I gave it a try. I run a minimal Debian Lenny install in my eee 901 (using the eee-specific iso). When finished, restarted the computer, logged in as root and installed ("aptitude install") synaptic, xorg, openbox, obconf, slim and some basic apps (iceweasel, thunar, xpad, leafpad, feh, ristretto, conky). Then, restored the backed-up config files (conkyrc, menu, autostart, rc - not that I expect them to work OoTB), tweaked them a little bit, as well as the slim config (as per instructions in http://slim.berlios.de) and restarted the computer again. All the time connected through a wired ethernet connection.

Basically, I ended up with a rather ugly installation (in terms of window-content styles and icons - I did not really try to improve it), in slightly over 1G. However, somehow resembled the #! looks (after wallpaper installed with feh, and conky setup - did not try any panel). The apps worked without a problem. Some other things, I did not manage to make them work, like the "Exit" instruction when not loaded as a root, or the keyboard shortcuts (this one I could not understand: the openbox window theme was picked up, but not the key-binding, and they both are controlled by rc.xml, right?). Additionally, I did not perceive any performance improvement (boot or program running speed) over my #! install. I guess I do not have the necessary skills and/or knowledge to know what to tweak to improve that performance...

Maybe I give it another go in the weekend smile

By the way, I re-installed #! again after getting tired of playing, but went for wicd instead of network manager, and I DID see a real performance improvement in terms of network responsiveness!

Shinkanzen · 2009-05-15 01:44:27

i had the idea to split #!
1. edition based on debian 5 (deploy once and forget) for older hardware.
2. edition based on the latest ubuntu/debian unstable for modern pcs especially netbooks

super.rad · 2009-05-22 13:03:11

While installing last night I was thinking how great #! would be if it was based on Debian, much more lightweight compared to Ubuntu and rolling release.
Didn't even think of Arch, this would be much better as it is more upto date than Debian and has AUR for more bleeding-edge packages.
A lot of people say that Arch is too hard to install but as long as you follow the beginners guide it's easy or you could create a live cd like chakra.
Either way I'd much prefer a rolling release version of #! based on either debian or arch (my vote going to arch)

snowpine · 2009-05-22 13:28:49

I've been thinking about this more as I get some experience with Debian. I think if you switch CrunchBang to Debian, support requests on these forums increase exponentially. For better or worse, Debian just doesn't have the same "out of the box" hardware support as Ubuntu. And from what I've seen of the Debian forums, it is not a friendly place for newbies who don't know the difference between "pure" Debian and one of its derivatives. One advantage of the current situation is that you can go to Ubuntuforums and get pretty good advice about #! without getting laughed at.

Personally I would love to see a Debian port of #!... The stability is so nice, and I get shivers at the though of Super+U launching the smxi script, or of using ceni as #!'s default network manager. wink

(edit) Although, based on the glowing reviews in this thread, I am testing Arch for the first time... I see the appeal now! So many distros... they are all good... I just can't decide. sad

Last edited by snowpine (2009-05-27 15:32:02)

cmay · 2009-05-27 22:48:45

All that being said, I love the idea of porting #! to Debian, but for completely different reasons (not performance).
1) Debian's "rolling unstable/rolling testing/stable when we say it's ready" model is way cooler than Ubuntu's "buggy release every 6 months" cycle.
2) Debian but with all the non-free stuff that comes with #! would be kick ass.
3) You are a much better graphic designer than anyone working on Debian! smile

this sounds great to me. i completly agree.

i use debian lenny the lxde + xfce image and i install openbox also . so i have it a bit like crunch bang whihc i am starting to feel is the only right distro for my notebook. it has all i need and i like to use it on laptops.

but to build crunch bang on debian and stlll have the restricted stuff available and installed per default so my 3g wireless wortks out of the box would almost be like a dream come true.

the reason i use crunch bang is that i have a notebook with 15.4 inch screen and i like the open box windows manager and crunch as it is now is great working with.

the reason i use debian wiht lxde and openbox is that i have old computers also . and it runs fast even on as old as 600 mzh and 300 mb ram.

fhsm · 2009-05-28 01:39:02

cmay wrote:

All that being said, I love the idea of porting #! to Debian, but for completely different reasons (not performance).
1) Debian's "rolling unstable/rolling testing/stable when we say it's ready" model is way cooler than Ubuntu's "buggy release every 6 months" cycle.
2) Debian but with all the non-free stuff that comes with #! would be kick ass.
3) You are a much better graphic designer than anyone working on Debian! smile
this sounds great to me. i completly agree.
i use debian lenny the lxde + xfce image and i install openbox also . so i have it a bit like crunch bang whihc i am starting to feel is the only right distro for my notebook. it has all i need and i like to use it on laptops.
but to build crunch bang on debian and stlll have the restricted stuff available and installed per default so my 3g wireless wortks out of the box would almost be like a dream come true.
the reason i use crunch bang is that i have a notebook with 15.4 inch screen and i like the open box windows manager and crunch as it is now is great working with.
the reason i use debian wiht lxde and openbox is that i have old computers also . and it runs fast even on as old as 600 mzh and 300 mb ram.

Getting off the 6 mo and onto a rolling would be nice.

Kruce · 2009-06-12 23:33:48

I was commenting on a blog page, and the OP mentioned E16.

This page is rather interesting to compare footprints.

http://www.gilesorr.com/wm/memory32.html

ZAP · 2009-06-13 02:25:11

Apropos the discussion about whether XFCE is light and Xubuntu is overly bloated...

I had a very old Dell that I needed to get working for someone (256 MB of RAM, ancient CPU, 18 GB HD). #! seemed like it wouldn't run well on this old nag, and I was worried that OpenBox wouldn't be friendly enough for the multiple users of this machine (who will likely get no introduction to it; they just be handed it and told to use it). So I gave Dreamlinux XFCE a try.

Wow! It's really amazingly fast on such a crappy old system. It's based on Debian Lenny, which made me somewhat interested in a Debian-based install on one of my own computers.

Zwopper · 2009-06-14 22:13:11

Sidux XFCE is VERY fast as well - recommended!
Now how's THAT for a new base?

anonymous · 2009-06-14 22:17:42

Well sidux itself is based on Debian, we should just go for the source (Debian).

snowpine · 2009-06-15 13:53:43

After using Arch for the past few weeks, and Debian testing for some time before that, #! is back on my Dell Mini. Lots of pros and cons to each distro, but in the end I just missed something about #!. Arch and Squeeze were both cool, but Ubuntu was definitely a good choice as #!'s base. I still wish #! was rolling release though... but my other laptop has #! upgraded all the way from 8.10 release candidate to 9.10 alpha without a hitch, so I can't really complain.

Last edited by snowpine (2009-06-15 14:03:37)

snowpine · 2009-06-15 13:55:36

anonymous wrote:

Well sidux itself is based on Debian, we should just go for the source (Debian).

Exactly, plus Debian has a minimal installer. Sidux does not, and therefore can't serve as the base for a custom distro unless one is willing to go through and strip out the Xfce components.

Sidux's main advantage is its custom stabilized kernel, but this is easy to install in Debian using the smxi script.

ps http://cap.gediam.de/index-en.htm

Last edited by snowpine (2009-06-15 13:56:44)

vicshrike · 2009-06-17 10:02:37

just wondered if an #! upgrade tool app is possible?

fox · 2009-06-17 11:07:23

snowpine wrote:

... but my other laptop has #! upgraded all the way from 8.10 release candidate to 9.10 alpha without a hitch, so I can't really complain.

So you are running #! 9.10? How did you do this? Does the existing #! script do the right things with 9.10 alpha base install?

snowpine · 2009-06-17 14:00:42

fox wrote:

snowpine wrote:
... but my other laptop has #! upgraded all the way from 8.10 release candidate to 9.10 alpha without a hitch, so I can't really complain.
So you are running #! 9.10? How did you do this? Does the existing #! script do the right things with 9.10 alpha base install?

'sudo do-release-upgrade -d'

As mentioned I upgraded from 8.10, I did not install over a 9.10 base install.

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#26 2009-05-13 07:20:08

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#27 2009-05-13 12:03:05

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#28 2009-05-14 10:20:12

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#29 2009-05-15 01:44:27

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#30 2009-05-22 13:03:11

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#31 2009-05-22 13:28:49

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#32 2009-05-27 22:48:45

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#33 2009-05-28 01:39:02

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#34 2009-06-12 23:33:48

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#35 2009-06-13 02:25:11

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#36 2009-06-14 22:13:11

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#37 2009-06-14 22:17:42

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#38 2009-06-15 13:53:43

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#39 2009-06-15 13:55:36

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#40 2009-06-17 10:02:37

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#41 2009-06-17 11:07:23

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

#42 2009-06-17 14:00:42

Re: Xubuntu vs. Debian Xfce Distrowatch articles

Board footer