Need New Distro

I've tried the latest version of Ubuntu, and I'm actually very disappointed. The GUI is very weird and I think its very counter productive. I heard Fedora 14 was very buggy and from my previous experiences with Fedora, I'm pretty sure these rumors are true. I want stability, but I also want it to work on my T410s. I really love debian, but it doesn't really work well on newer hardware.

Any suggestions would be nice I'm looking for something as advance as Fedora, but without the bugs and probably something not too flashy as Ubuntu.

Sorry for the grammar, I've not feeling very well.

 

Have you tried Mint? Because if you haven't you are missing out on a highly polished distro that can be sold alongside Windows 7 and OS X.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/linux-compatibility-software/576046-mint-11-preview.html

 

Have you tried Debian Squeeze on your T410? It's not sandy bridge, so you shouldn't have many problems as far as the kernel is concerned.

If squeeze (with backports maybe) isn't up to date enough, give wheezy a shot. I run sid but I'd be a complete jerk to recommend that to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with debian packaging (it breaks about once a month even if you are careful - I keep a large package cache to downgrade entire parts of the system at a time when this happens).

Also check out scientific linux, or fedora 15. Mint is cool because it's less flashy indeed but I have no experience with it really to recommend it.

 

You DO realize that you can switch back to regular gnome at the login screen of ubuntu 11.04 without any problems, right?

 

No I didn't, thanks

I might give Linux Mint a spin.

 

Wait for the end of May release. You will like Mint once you try it. Have you tried Kubuntu 11.04?

 

I second giving Linux Mint a try. I also didn't like Ubuntu 11.04 all that much (even in classic mode), so I tried out Linux Mint and was very impressed with it. I have it currently running on my netbook.

You can also maybe give KDE 4.6 a try too, if you get the chance. Apparently its come a long way, and I prefer it over Gnome 2.x now.

 

I'll throw a shout out for PCLinuxOS. I use the KDE version (4.6.3), but gnome, enlightenment, xfce, lxde, and openbox versions are available too.

 

you could also just try switching to xubuntu. I've heard some nice things about xfce 4.8

 

XFCE is great. I recently installed it on my Crunchbang! setup. Now I have 4 PC's all running different flavors of Linux kernel, yet all with XFCE 4.8. It is sexy.

 

Debian.

Here's why:

1) You can pick your desktop environment. Classic GNOME, XFCE, LXDE, whatever you want. Classic GNOME will be supported through the next release, including security and bug fixes.

2) Stable. Debian doesn't pull an Ubuntu and change stuff just to be different. Debian's goal is produce the best, most stable, reliable releases they can.

3) Reliable. It's pretty rare for Debian to break something. With Debian, you get the sense that once it's installed and set up, it'll continue to work that way until you change something.

4) Similar to Ubuntu. Or rather, Ubuntu is derived from it. As a result, apt-get, aptitude, the location of files, etc. are all basically the same as you're used to -- so the readjustment period will likely be shorter.

 

Mint currently has a Debian version as well, based on Wheezy.

The Linux Mint Blog Blog Archive Linux Mint Debian (201012) released!

I'll also give a recommend for Mint in either Debian or Ubuntu base.

A lot of people seem to like the newest OpenSuse too and it's a very polished distro.

 

Lot's of love for Mint.

 

That is what I use. LMDE with gnome.
The only thing that surprised me about it, was the frequent amount of updates that they keep pumping out.

 

If you don't like buggy, Scientific Linux is the antithesis of buggy....should be fine on your T410s.

I'm biased, sure, but I became that way from years of distro hopping which I'm glad to say has stopped

 

I'm still a little hesitant to trust Mint after the package signing thing a couple years back. I like the idea, but I'm not sure if I trust them security-wise just yet...

 

I agree completely. The Debian package system is really great IMO.

 

I was a long time ubuntu guy (6 or so years) and 11.04 ruined it for me. I went to debian squeeze as I'm a HUGE debian based fan and why not go to the source of this style linux. Couldn't be happier.

 

I'm an arch linux only user since two years ago and my arch linux install is two years old.

Depending on what you mean for stability, arch has bleeding edge packages and follows a rolling release model, but by using it I learned to make it stable myself

IMO, arch does have the best packaging system (the arch building system) around and the most helpful online documentation through the arch wiki.

 

While you may be able to make a "stable" Arch system in the sense that your box doesn't crash, Arch is definitely *not* "stable" in the sense that Debian and SL are (i.e. once configured, things don't change, no new features after a release, etc.)

Arch is great for enthusiasts and folks who enjoy spending time tuning, tweaking, and reconfiguring their boxes. It's no so great for business users and others who just want to install their distro, configure it, and not worry about changing anything for years.

 

As an Arch user, I couldn't agree more.
If you don't mind messing with configs - try Arch, but if you rather prefer to configure things once and forget about it - go for some more stable dist.

 

As somewhat of a newbie to Arch, I also must agree with the above sentiments. As much as I've learned about Linux from using Arch so far, you'd be far more productive not having to worry about maintaining your system.

On another note, I've found openSUSE to be rather nice. Everything was nicely polished and package support was quite good (nowhere near anything you'd find on Debian/*buntu though) when I used it. I only used it for a few weeks but still, you might want to take a look into it.

 

Considering the OP says the distro is going to run on his own computer, expresses dissatisfaction with counterproductive pre-assembled GUI, and mentions Fedora (cutting edge packages?), I don't see why he couldn't spend a couple hours setting an arch system for his use and manage to be stable and very happy with it.

 

A few that I have tried recently and really enjoyed:

Debian Squeeze + XFCE 4.8

Crunchbang! Linux (based on Deb Squeeze)

Xubuntu 11.04

openSUSE 11.4

Zenwalk 7.0 + openbox

 

Why use *buntus nowadays? They're always doing their own thing and branching further and further away from Debian. Now, they don't even like Gnome and will probably veer away from that. They're the MikeySoft of the Linux world.

 

I supersede Crunchbang linux(based on debian) and Zenwalk(based on slackware), xfce runs great on both.

 

The more popular they get, the better off the rest of us are. So i say go Canonical !! What about you?

 

If I were to re-roll my primary Linux rig today, I'd probably go with Debian. I defected to the Fedora camp for awhile - I actually started out with RedHat - but apt-get has become a familiar friend at this point. My test box ran Debian Squeeze for a bit, I found it to be rock solid reliability-wise.

For now, my Linux boxes run Ubuntu server/desktop, depending on their roles. When I swap an SSD into my X201 down the road, I'll probably load Debian rather than Ubuntu, though. The entire 11.04 experience has left me a bit sour on Canonical's vision of UI, and the difficulty I experienced getting gnome back to the way I like it (after Unity broke everything) was an immense headache.

 

You can also try Ubuntu's excellent PPAs, you would have to reconfigure the software sources after an upgrade, but the system underneath doesn't need to be touched. I'm currently using Arch, and love the stock, unaltered themes that come with it. I can get the same experience on Ubuntu by tweaking what packages I use and from where I get them.