Now that I have your attention....

Note: The last section titled "Package Management" goes into rather extraneous detail, so feel free to skip it if gets too dense.

sounds like the exact thing I've been looking for. Powerful, but no overly elaborate bulls*** that the user is forced to learn before he can do anything useful. I like.

The complexity of linux is the main reason why I'm using windows again. I just didn't have time to learn everything. At bookstores they have 900 page books on linux. I just want to get stuff done amazingly fast.

Yeah... I like using my computer to do "stuff", not constantly trying to make it work. In my 6 months of using Gentoo... I spent most of the time compiling... compiling... compiling.....

1. RTF files suck.

2. You criticize the fluff, but you want to make something easy to use? The fluff is what makes it easy to use. I guess you can simplify it to an extent, but that might not always be easy to do.

3. Why GNOME? In my experience, KDE runs faster, looks better, and has quite a few good supporting apps (though I don't really use either as of late). I could very well be wrong, but after using both, I know I prefered KDE. However, if you really want it to be simple, you should write your own WM that does the job right. Then, it would be just a matter of using something like GTK-QT (to make sure all of your apps have a consistent theme) and implementing features so that file could be associated with programs and what not.

4. Don't try to hide the CLI too much, especially on boot. A GUI by default is ok, but make sure it can be done by hand as well.

5. How does your package system handle serious dependency issues? For example, it two programs depend on different versions of the same package, how would you resolve that? Also, you should be careful if you let users remove packages that are the dependencies of other installed packages. A novice user could really screw up their system by not knowing any better.

6. I don't think you should go too bare-bones; a lot of people like to have a reasonably functional system after the initial install, not after a few more hours of installing basic packages that were not conveniently included with the distribution.

7. Good luck. I would help, but I'm more of a BSD guy, so I'd rather contribute to a project like DragonFlyBSD or FreeBSD. Maybe some of the Linux users around here could give you better input.

Sounds like a base install of debian w/the new installer.

1. Point taken.

2. Point taken.

3. I chose Gnome because simplicity is a fundamental philosophy of Gnome, whereas customization seems to be a more fundamental philosophy of KDE. Given the project's goals, I felt that Gnome matched it better.

4. Point taken. The CLI is defiantly an option, but by no means should be a requirement.

5. Point taken. The user would only remove a shared library if there are no reverse deps.

6. A bare-bones system allows the system to fit on one CD. and allows the user to get into his new system as quickly as possible. From there he can install all the packages he wants.

7. Thanks. But realistically, I have no chance of embarking on this project any time soon.

Precicly... the installer makes me want to puke.

Well, my only beef is with #6. What if a user is on dial-up? That would be painful. You can send away for a disc, but you still need the apps? I guess there could be a second disc or something.

Good idea, a second optional disc is a good idea. It just makes me mad when Fedora Core requires like 3 or 4 discs. Now that's just bloated.

So I guess this is essensially Debian with a live-cd, a dfferent type of installer, a kernel with a bootsplash, a modified version of Gnome, and a new front-end to apt that uses bit-torrent.

Seriously though... the Debian install process is horrible. It was question after question after question, and it kept going in circles. And when I finally got it running, it asked me more and more questions that I didn't know the answer to.

yeah, downloading several 650-700 mb iso images is no easy thing even on broadband.

I'd like to note that I was particuarily inspired by what Ubuntu did with the Gnome menus:

Screenshots

Be sure to look at the screenshots following that page by clicking on the arrow key, and take a look at the "Computer" menu.

Not to stab your confidence but this does sound like A LOT for one guy.

More thoughts:

• You absolutely need CLI as Malus said. CLs have bailed my *** out of sooo many screw ups. Consequently I've caused many a screw up. One just has to know what they're doing.
• "cryptic loading messages" should be a toggle option. Like most newer machines, I can see the POST or have a logo be displayed in front. It allows skilled users to see what's going on should something not work.
• You should probably handle installation of EVERYTHING at once. Installing bare-bones then going back to install more stuff is just...bleh.
• I've used Gnome, I've used KDE. They both have their ups and downs. I prefer KDE. But that's just me.
• OH GOD YES! No sources! Such a pain in the *** to compile. I do that enough with my own programs!

Your packaging system is quite intense and to be honest I did a tl;dr (*runs from bans*). It's has some nice features. I like the MD5 summing for all downloads.

Good luck!

You do realize that a better installer for debian is in testing right now right? I think it's on RC2. Also, you should check out libranet linux, it's probably exactly what you're looking for.

Debian is the distro you are looking for...


Bootsplash) Bad idea. I want to see whats loading, as its loading. That way, if something dies or pauses indefinitely, I can see it and fix it.

"One right way to do it") Bad idea. There should always be more than one solution to a problem, because no one solution will work for everyone.

GUI installer) Bad idea. Too slow, to big. Done correctly, ncurses installers beat GUI installers anyday.

gdm) I hate Gnome's login manager. I hate it with a passion. KDE's is much better, or short of that, xdm.

Choice of Gnome over KDE) This probably stems from a personal choice of yours, so I can understand that..but not everyone likes Gnome. Personally, I cant stand to use it.


Your description for a package manager sounds convoluted and awkward. Whats so hard about `apt-get install package-name` or `apt-get remove package-name`?

The chances of me acutally doing *work* is really low. I'll probobly just find a distro that matches my needs and go with that. Really, skrew everything I've said. I'm just pissed off at Gentoo, but equally pissed off at Redhat / Fedora -- for opposite reasons. Somebody give me a Debian that's not dumbed down but is easy to install.

About the package manager... yeah, it sounds like a mess. But really, it would be no more than a front-end for apt with p2p enabled. In addition, it could be integrated into the panel. (Windows update!!!1)

I can't believe that you're actually *****ing about Gentoo after scaring all the n00bs into using it :p

Compiling does suck, expecially when it doesn't go as expected.

I happen to like Fedora Core 2. I like the installer, and I just use the minimal install, not getting a bunch of crap that I don't want. After that, with the CD's or with yum (or even apt) you can install the packages you want, with no compiling. NO problems with dependencies. And FC2 uses Gnome by default, and doesn't install KDE or any other desktop env.'s if you don't ask for them.

I ordered Ubuntu cds for x86 and amd64, I'm going to check it out.

If I could get Gentoo to stay functioning properly, I would. I got so spoiled by Portage that using Debian made me very sad.

I have not been disappointed with Slackware at all. If you want minimalistic, that's your distro.

I used to like Slackware. However, Slackware's kernel no longer boots for me, because it does not support my SATA HD.

Hebedee... that is exactly how I feel.

I want the power of portage, without compilation, I want the simplicity of Slackware, and I want the easiness and polish of Redhat.

Go with KDE, its much better.

USE DEBIAN. If you don't like the installer, use KNOPPIX as the base and remove all the packages you don't want. Otherwise, drop 50 bucks on libranet.

I think I will try Ubuntu GNU / Linux today.

You know that you can download binary packages with Portage, right?

Hm, every time I try emerge -K, it doesn't find it on the mirror. I don't think Gentoo binaries are in good supply.

Hello from Ubuntu GNU / Linux! Wow that was a fast install.

If you like Slackware, you should try FreeBSD. I'm serious. It has a portage system like Gentoo's, but it organized, clean, and minimal like Slackware, not to mention more secure.

Is this Ubuntu a nice system for new users?

Is FreeBSD another distro of Linux or are we talking a completely different operating system?

I'll 100th that!

FreeBSD is a completely other operating system, but it's so similar you won't, as a desktop user, notice much difference (if any at all). The ports system, which is what they use for package management, worked flawlessly for me when I used to use FreeBSD. You can run all the same software as linux for the most part, although I don't think most games work. I don't know if there are nvidia drivers and whatnot for FreeBSD.

Ubuntu is fantastic! Bascially, it is a fully functional Gnome desktop out of the box with apt set up with synanaptic right away. I will say more later today when I get home.

I've been thinking of trying out FreeBSD. Is there anyone who can convince me in one way or the other?

You have to set up binary mirrors in your make.conf, IIRC. You could've always used the Gentoo package CD also.

It's pointless unless you have a need for it? It's great for running a server or a unix workstation - but honestly, it's just like trying to choose among linux distros - once everything is installed and working, the only difference are the convenience tools and the package manager. FreeBSD is nice and the package management tools are cool and the documentation is great. Once it's all installed, you're left with a unix OS with a graphical desktop (if you so choose during the installation).

Apple?

They have 900 page books on everything, including Windows.

Actually, there is Linux emulation, where Linux binaries run at about 90% of the speed they normally do. Also, Nvidia does produce drivers for FreeBSD. I've even seen examples of Doom 3 running under FreeBSD just fine, along with many other games. If you own a newer ATI card, you won't be able to due to a lack of driver support.

I find that FeeeBSD is easier to maintain as well, but that could just be personal preference.

Well, I use it as a server and a workstation for when I code. I find that is suits my needs very well. You should just try it out; that will convince you as to whether or not you'll like it.

too expensive. For what you spend on a new G5, you can get a real kickass PC.

the difference is that you don't need a book to learn windows quickly. Things are easy to figure out and they generally work (granted, rather half-a**edly) but they work.

On linux, it has a ton of potential, but the time required to learn it all doesn't make it worth it for me.