the why and how of the linux distribution

My needs are like many others. I need to use a traditional file manager,where I organize files and folders, access hard drives, usb drives and network shares, so I can organize my files in filing cabinet fashion. I need a word processor and a web browser. Then there are other tools I use for system maintenance, multimedia, and some specific programs that I need for academic reasons.

So my needs for a system do have criteria. But of course none of this means a whole hell of a lot, since we can mix and match all things linux in just about any distro we want. We simply pick a distribution and run with it. Which gets me back to some earlier points about Interfaces.

There are distributions and there are distributions based on distributions and there are distributions based on distributions based on distributions.  The mother of all distributions is Debian.

You can download Debian and run it, but it has a bit of a curve, but not anymore than any other Linux distro. But typically users do not start with Debian, not to say you can't, but to do this we will have to follow some instructions about installing the right desktop interface,  because this is where BIAS comes in. By default Debian uses GNOME, rumor has it changing to Xfce, but Xfce while using good standards is using a slightly outdated tool kit GTK+ version 2. Also is not a very active project, not that this is a bad thing. If applications adhere to the open desktop standards apps should run fine on it. GNOME, Unity and a fork of GNOME called Cinnamon all use the later GTK+ version 3 tool kit.

We want an interface that is not foreign to us or works the way we are comfortable with... and this means looking at the choices in interfaces and looking at them as a functional program that fits our needs and perhaps actively developed. This was not a big issue until the Cell Phone changed the paradigm. Even Windows 8 is that new odd panel oriented looking thing! This gets back to what you desire and need in functionality. For myself, i want my desktop like I have always had. i do not have a problem with work flow and never did. i log into my PC and use it, work gets done end of story. But my choices are changing all because of touch screen pads and phones. This makes me and others a bit frustrated. I like my traditional workstation, nothing is wrong with it and I want to continue using it as i always have done.

So we want a functional desktop and again there are many Linux Distributions to choose from and I have loaded many of them, but my experience is that Debian based distros and CentOS are the best.

Enter the source based distro. Arch and Gentoo are two distributions that are very esoteric. They are installed on the device piece meal or even compiled from source in gentoo's case, which is ultra efficient for the target device, but time consuming for the install. I think this is all great and good (it's about choice right?), the difference in performance in a source distro and a stock Debian distro are going to be negligible on current hardware. If you had 100 hundred identical old machines and wanted to squeeze some more years out of them, compile the install, back up the custom image and place it on the other 99 machines, but the pain of this install is only for those that enjoy this pain or ones that can gain from it. My hardware is modern enough and generic enough to not gain any appreciable speed from a gentoo or arch install. This however can change.

The most functional and stable desktop operating systems you can run on a PC, PERIOD, to me are Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Debian (stable or testing) and CentOS (honorable mention to FreeBSD, but FreeBSD is not Linux). Xubuntu uses the Xfce desktop and CentOS and Debian Stable both use the now defunct GNOME 2 desktop. So we have an issue here. Regardless of the underpinnings GNOME 2 and Xfce are the most traditional desktop metaphors and are similar to Windows prior to Windows 8. Windows 8 is similar to Gnome 3. There are many many more distributions to chose from, but I talk about these exclusively. if you are able to distinguish from other distros then you would probably be reading this for entertainment only.

So which do we use? I am really going to twist things and say Kubuntu. I just lost many readers just now, but maybe some are thinking I am not insane after all.

Over the years i have come to like certain programs and these use a certain widget set called Qt.  The desktop environment based on Qt is KDE. I have been mentioning GTK and how GTK3 is now being developed, well Qt is also being actively developed and has quite a large development base. So, since I use many KDE programs and I want to stay with a currently active desktop, it only makes sense for me to use KDE. I also base this on my hardware ability.

I absolutely love Xfce and it's stability, it's no-nonsense appearance and efficiency. I would still be running Xfce if I didn't run so many KDE apps even though I can run KDE apps in Xfce. I also like the KDE education packages for my daughter.

KDE like all things computers has some draw backs and one of them is it is very large and running it with desktop eye candy enabled is resource intensive. It makes my very modern and fast PC work a bit to run its desktop. However Ubuntu is much more resource intensive. There is a Qt based desktop that values your CPU cycles and I mention it in a bit.

Anyway we are getting into some grainy and fickle areas. So let me just say that Xfce is an outstanding desktop and I love it's approach, its function and philosophy, but it is based on slightly outdated technology and it has a lackadaisical development effort.

Enter the Razor-Qt desktop environment. It is a small and fine tuned desktop based on the Qt tool kit and it shows a lot of promise. I have it installed and from time to time log into it and check it out. It is very new and lacks many features and functional applets. If Xfce and Razor could get together I think it would be a great desktop. Easier said than done.

My old laptop is a 1.4 Ghz laptop and if it could run a solid state drive, then it would be quite a number, but as is, it is slow and old. The only fit i have found for it is CentOS. CentOS is a good desktop to run if you are interested in supporting corporate desktops and it runs every program I need for network analysis and even more. I didn't expect CentOS to reignite that laptop so well, but it did and I am very pleased.