Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

sunfizz98 · 2012-07-03 23:28:41

I have a friend. He's very new to computers and knows relatively little to nothing about handling computers, such as navigating windows. Due to the plethora of questions related to computer security and random stuff, I suggested him to try out linux, mostly because it would solve nearly every fear and concern he has had with computers (like viruses, adware, spyware, etc.). He decided to take me up on that offer.

The question I pose now is should I have him try the livecd of Statler or Waldorf. I know both are very user-friendly but my friend does not have stable/frequent access to internet. From what I understand, Statler might require less resources and package updates. I probably already know the answer but it would be nice to hear feedback from the wonderful guys and gals of Crunchbang.

1. How often does Wheezy need to be updated?
2. Would it just be more convenient and easier to manage a Debian Squeeze box than a Wheezy box?
3. Do I need to teach him anything after a fresh Statler install or can I rest in peace and allow the forums to socialize with him?

I'm assuming Crunchbang is about as close to a windows experience in terms of ease of use, but I could be wrong. I would love to teach him everything that I know about linux but I work 40+ hours a week nighshift and doubt I would be able to acommodate his needs very well.

Last edited by sunfizz98 (2012-07-03 23:31:20)

FreQ · 2012-07-04 01:37:26

Hi mate, here's my 2 cents, i'm relatively new to #! but a long time debian user
As much as i'm enjoying crunchbang, i wouldn't say it is closest to a windows experience you can get, especially if he knows "little to nothing"

I'll just throw out a few other options based on the setups i've been doing for friends/family lately

1. Debian stable Gnome : you make him point to "squeeze" so he keeps gnome2 even after Wheezy goes stable. (Add backports if he needs more up to date softwares). Just help him change sources.list to "stable" after if he wants more eye-candy gnome shell (and if PC can handle it).

2. Debian stable Xfce : easier i think, as Xfce won't change as much as gnome will with Debian 7 stable. Xfce is very easy for new users to customize, and closer to windows imo. In this case, standard Xfce install with "stable" in sources.list from day1

3. Debian Lxde stable : same as above if his PC is really old and slow

4. LMDE Xfce : i wouldn't go the gnome way with LMDE as Cinammon/Mate/gnome3 is kind of a mess. But the Xfce edition is quite fully loaded out of the box, Mint's update packs on top of testing makes it easier and safer to update, especially for new users

5. SoluceOS : based on stable with newer kernel and apps. Very user friendly, for exemple detects and install drivers in a nice home-made firstrunwizard. It is very good and snappy too

That's what comes to mind regarding Debian.
Of course, you can still go the Buntu way, and you have the choice there
I like pure Debian myself, but it's still good for new linux users
I'd say Xubuntu/Lubuntu 12.04
Or Pinguy (11.04/ping-eee,12.04), Zorin 5/6 if he wants something closer to windows

I could go on but i'll stop here, it's kinda hard not knowing for a start what PC specs and what he would prefer of course
Did you think #! in the first place because you're using it and he liked it, or because he needs a lightweight OS ?
Hope that helps even a little anyways, let me know

joek · 2012-07-04 08:47:48

While Wheezy is still in testing (even though it is frozen now), I'd definitely stick with squeeze. Both my Debian boxes run squeeze and I go months between updates and get only relatively few.

The one thing I would say about #! is that if he's familiar with Windows but not linux, I would personally give him the Xfce version rather than the OB version. It seems less scary, I think, and more familiar to beginners. Although, having just checked, that seems no longer to be offered, so this might not be an option.

As for FreQ's recommendations:
1) I wouldn't give him Gnome, but that may just be because I dislike Gnome with a passion. My first experience with Linux was KDE, and I rapidly moved through Xfce to OB, after glancing at Gnome and deciding I didn't like it.
2) I definitely think that Xfce is the way forward for new users. When my friend wanted to move to Linux, I recommended LMDE with Xfce, and she has been perfectly happy with it. (She's now dual-booting it with #! Waldorf, actually...)
3) I have limited experience of LXDE, but from the little I have, it seemed quite usable.
4) LMDE with Xfce: If you decide not to put #! on, of all of FreQ's suggestions, I would say that this is the way to go. I think saying that #! is not close enough to the Windows experience for a non-technical user and then suggesting Debian is silly, to be perfectly honest. Advantages of both #! and LMDE over pure Debian:
- Media codecs out of the box
- Wireless/Graphics etc. more likely to work OOTB.
- LMDE especially has inherited some of the Ubuntu 'for non-technical users' attitude, whereas Debian cares rather less about supporting newbies.

As for the things he should know which will be different from on windows:
- at least the concept behind package management, and how to use synaptic or aptitude.
- the idea of root privileges.

FreQ · 2012-07-04 14:32:21

Hehe, sure i didn't want to sound silly ... because i'm not ! wink
But as he started off suggesting #! i supposed he was thinking debian as a base anyways ...
So i suggested today's lightweight options with Debian, putting forward DEs closer to Window's than OB from the experience i had setting up Linux for family and friends (basically, right clic paste files on desktop, change background ... and well, an application menu with icons, taskbar closer to Windows... )

If the question was just CB stable vs testing : stable of course
But sure i agree, pure Debian isn't necessarily the best way to go in your situation unless you spend some time after install helping set up the system, wether it's Xfce or OB
And then yes, LMDE Xfce seems better for this

I say Lxde is more than usable, boots up real quick and consumes around 100Mb RAM idle iirc
To a real computer newbie, who don't necessarily want to learn more, but just use a new system, i wouldn't even give synaptic or apt, just a software center, so that would be Xubuntu.

Still hard without your feedback mate, so let's here from you first !
Hope that clears up a few things in the meantime, peace

sunfizz98 · 2012-07-04 15:20:56

Considering my friend's laptop hardware is back from the early 2000, I'd say it is comparable to the best netbook as of now. I was thinking an xfce version of #!, but I thought about all the extra packages required for xfce compared to the three packages for openbox. Then there was me who used #! as my very first distro and found it very straightforward and simple to use...

I would suggest LMDE too, but that distro has a very big iso/install compared to crunchbang. My friend mostly uses his pc for web browsing documents. torrents, and basic word processing - all of which crunchbang satisfies. Is Statler still the main download or is it Waldorf?

@Freq
#! also uses 90-100mb ram on idle post-install.

Last edited by sunfizz98 (2012-07-04 15:22:12)

pidsley · 2012-07-04 15:33:42

sunfizz98 wrote:

1. How often does Wheezy need to be updated?
2. Would it just be more convenient and easier to manage a Debian Squeeze box than a Wheezy box?
3. Do I need to teach him anything after a fresh Statler install or can I rest in peace and allow the forums to socialize with him?

1. Wheezy is receiving large updates right now, as everyone rushes to get fixes in before the freeze. Just check the forum -- there are threads from people wondering why they're getting such big updates on Waldorf.
2. Yes
3. Depends on what he want to do. You say browsing, torrents, and word processing. You'll probably want to show him how to install LibreOffice, and how to use Transmission from Iceweasel. After that he can ask here and people will help him.

Given the choice between Statler and Waldorf, I say Statler for sure. You might need backports if you have any problems with wireless or you think he will care about the older versions of some software. If you want him to be able to get help here after the install, please don't use LMDE.

Last edited by pidsley (2012-07-04 15:36:52)

joek · 2012-07-04 19:06:40

pidsley wrote:

If you want him to be able to get help here after the install, please don't use LMDE.

Hah, no. Mint has a fairly active forum, I understand, so if you do go that route... The 1Gb install does seem a little excessive, though...

As for OB w. Tint (the #! way of doing things) vs. LXDE or Xfce, I think it really boils down to how willing he is to learn new things. For some people, not having a 'start menu' type launcher on the taskbar seems to be strangely disorientating, as does not being able to have a Documents folder on the desktop...

My vote is still for Statler, though.

rizzo · 2012-07-04 20:58:00

joek wrote:

4) LMDE with Xfce: If you decide not to put #! on, of all of FreQ's suggestions, I would say that this is the way to go. I think saying that #! is not close enough to the Windows experience for a non-technical user and then suggesting Debian is silly, to be perfectly honest. Advantages of both #! and LMDE over pure Debian:
- Media codecs out of the box
- Wireless/Graphics etc. more likely to work OOTB.
- LMDE especially has inherited some of the Ubuntu 'for non-technical users' attitude, whereas Debian cares rather less about supporting newbies.

Sound advice smile I'd have a look at LMDE Xfce. The update packs and Mint Update are a winner in your friend's case.

ivanovnegro · 2012-07-04 21:56:50

He is not good with computers and uses an older machine, Statler definitely. We are at the #! forums. smile Set it up, show some things and that should be all. Updates are easy on Stable.

Waldorf would be possible but could overburden the newbie with the updates Wheezy recieves even if very usable.

LMDE, sorry, IMO, bad choice. The chaotic update packs and breakages I hear and see on their forums, not for a newbie, more for an enthusiast. You wait for big updates, that are held back by the Mint guys and then BOOM!, do not think your friend would like this.

#! is light, usable and it has also codecs preinstalled. wink I would go with backports too.

The good thing about using Stable for newcomers is the low maintenance, you will just use your system, all other options would mean to maintain and constantly upgrading a changing system.

pidsley · 2012-07-04 21:59:57

ivanovnegro wrote:

LMDE, sorry, IMO, bad choice. The chaotic update packs and breakages I hear and see on their forums, not for a newbie, more for an enthusiast. You wait for big updates, that are held back by the Mint guys and then BOOM!, do not think your friend would like this.

Thank you Ivan. I have never heard anyone say anything good about LMDE. I was trying to be subtle when I said

If you want him to be able to get help here after the install, please don't use LMDE.

Last edited by pidsley (2012-07-04 22:01:14)

burfoot · 2012-07-04 23:03:29

why in the world would you want a "windows experience" ? and then suggest linux? esp for a new computer user?
I guess you want him to experience computer shutdown, loss of all desktop icons and menu due to malware and virus attacks? or just to experience the Blue screen of death? you will not find any of that here...

I'd recommend Ubuntu or ubuntu Xfce (Xubuntu), they both work well, and have a very easy software center. show him how the software center and updates work, and turn him loose.

joek · 2012-07-05 08:42:03

sunfizz wrote:

Considering my friend's laptop hardware is back from the early 2000

burfoot wrote:

I'd recommend Ubuntu or ubuntu Xfce (Xubuntu)

Really? As someone with a laptop from the early 2000s (Dell Latitude D400, 1.4Ghz Pentium M, 512Mb RAM), please please please for the love of all that is holy don't put him on Ubuntu. My laptop couldn't even install Ubuntu Maverick (the latest I have even tried), and Xubuntu is not all that much better. 1Gb RAM (which your friend might just about have, SF) is, I would say, the absolute minimum for a standard Ubuntu install to run smoothly. It might be possible on 512Gb (I hadn't upgraded my RAM from 256Mb last time I tried), but I can't imagine it'll be smooth. Lubuntu might be alright, but I have no experience with it, so I can't recommend it.

ETA: Well, I have a Maverick disk which at least used to work (my brother installed his system off it a few years ago), but it utterly refuses to have anything to do with my laptop. It's looking less and less like Ubuntu is a good idea...

ETA2: Okay, looks like the disk was dodgy. I recalled I had a Natty .iso lying about, burnt that, and successfully installed. So installation is possible with 512Gb. However

free -m

gave me 153Mb RAM used idle, after a clean boot, on Gnome 2 (my system isn't powerful enough for Unity!). Since the fallback option these days is Gnome 3, the idle RAM use may well have increased.
For reference, I am posting this on #!, with iceweasel open with four tabs:

free -m
...
-/+ buffers/cache:        227        273

When I booted this system, it was using 48Mb at startup. I wouldn't like to browse the web on this with Ubuntu...

Last edited by joek (2012-07-05 10:46:22)

hochrappenkopf · 2012-09-17 13:17:31

I suggest: Waldorf!! cool

xf · 2012-09-17 14:00:35

sunfizz98 wrote:

Considering my friend's laptop hardware is back from the early 2000, I'd say it is comparable to the best netbook as of now.

Basically, I'm not a fan of Ubuntu. But I have tested the distribution (with LXDE desktop) for a long time at the netbook of my girlfriend. Lubuntu is marginal resource-hungrier than Openbox. There is a difference of about 20-40 MB RAM after a fresh installation.

But you benefit from the giant community around Ubuntu. Current software and PPAs: The software center itself, a huge wiki and thousands how-tos. This is a big advantage for someone whom you can not expect the same fumbling in text files.

Save your nerves and make it easy to him: His first steps in Linux should be easy as possible.

Last edited by xf (2012-09-17 14:01:28)

servingwater · 2012-09-19 12:35:29

burfoot wrote:

why in the world would you want a "windows experience" ? and then suggest linux? esp for a new computer user? I guess you want him to experience computer shutdown, loss of all desktop icons and menu due to malware and virus attacks? or just to experience the Blue screen of death? you will not find any of that here...
I'd recommend Ubuntu or ubuntu Xfce (Xubuntu), they both work well, and have a very easy software center. show him how the software center and updates work, and turn him loose.

There is a fair point behind this.
Not the rather biased opinion on windows big_smile wink but if the friend really hardly has any knowledege of computers in general, meaning he has not really used them that much.
Then I do not see the concern about the distro that is choosen having to able to provide a windows "expierence".
OB and #! could be just fine since, for a lack of a better, he/she wouldn't know any better anyway.

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-07-03 23:28:41

Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#2 2012-07-04 01:37:26

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#3 2012-07-04 08:47:48

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#4 2012-07-04 14:32:21

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#5 2012-07-04 15:20:56

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#6 2012-07-04 15:33:42

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#7 2012-07-04 19:06:40

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#8 2012-07-04 20:58:00

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#9 2012-07-04 21:56:50

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#10 2012-07-04 21:59:57

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#11 2012-07-04 23:03:29

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#12 2012-07-05 08:42:03

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#13 2012-09-17 13:17:31

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#14 2012-09-17 14:00:35

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

#15 2012-09-19 12:35:29

Re: Crunchbang - Stable(Statler) or Testing(Waldorf) for friend?

Board footer