xbuntu vs ubuntu - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on xbuntu vs ubuntu - Ubuntu ; One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded. The truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply installed it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: xbuntu vs ubuntu

  1. xbuntu vs ubuntu

    One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded.
    The truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply
    installed it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to me as I
    was just trying to get my feet wet. I stepped into a couple of deep
    holes but didn,t drown and just want to get rid of windoz. I may have
    had xbuntu on a previous ver installed to try it out.

    My systems are older ( a few years) but they all have at least 1g of
    ram. The slowest clock speed is 166 mh. I have run some serious graphics
    programs on these machines with no problem.

    Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    ties.

    I have other issues such as my scanner not working but I can address
    that once I make the decision.

    Wendell

  2. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu


    "Wendell" wrote in message
    news:47b31531$0$13876$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
    : Eh?

    "Xubuntu?"



  3. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    Wendell wrote:
    > One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded.
    > The truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply
    > installed it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to me as I
    > was just trying to get my feet wet. I stepped into a couple of deep
    > holes but didn,t drown and just want to get rid of windoz. I may have
    > had xbuntu on a previous ver installed to try it out.
    >
    > My systems are older ( a few years) but they all have at least 1g of
    > ram. The slowest clock speed is 166 mh. I have run some serious graphics
    > programs on these machines with no problem.
    >
    > Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    > ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    > ties.
    >
    > I have other issues such as my scanner not working but I can address
    > that once I make the decision.
    >
    > Wendell


    afaik, they're the same under the hood. The difference is the graphical
    interface(GUI)... the things you can look at and click with your mouse.
    Xubuntu GUI requires less power to run, fundamentally by having less
    features, bells and whistles.
    I have both on a PIII 550 with 768 of PC100 and I don't see a
    significant performance delta between gnome desktop (Ubuntu) vs. xfce
    desktop(Xubuntu).
    You can install both, do a taste test, and uninstall one or the other if
    you don't like it.
    You can also install apps for gnome on xfce (and vice versa) if you need
    something gnome does that xfce doesn't. Synaptic will install the
    required dependencies automatically.

  4. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu


    "clay" wrote in message
    news:%KFsj.283$Ru4.234@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
    > Wendell wrote:
    >> One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded.
    >> The truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply
    >> installed it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to me as I
    >> was just trying to get my feet wet. I stepped into a couple of deep holes
    >> but didn,t drown and just want to get rid of windoz. I may have had
    >> xbuntu on a previous ver installed to try it out.
    >>
    >> My systems are older ( a few years) but they all have at least 1g of ram.
    >> The slowest clock speed is 166 mh. I have run some serious graphics
    >> programs on these machines with no problem.
    >>
    >> Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    >> ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    >> ties.
    >>
    >> I have other issues such as my scanner not working but I can address that
    >> once I make the decision.
    >>
    >> Wendell

    >
    > afaik, they're the same under the hood. The difference is the graphical
    > interface(GUI)... the things you can look at and click with your mouse.
    > Xubuntu GUI requires less power to run, fundamentally by having less
    > features, bells and whistles.
    > I have both on a PIII 550 with 768 of PC100 and I don't see a significant
    > performance delta between gnome desktop (Ubuntu) vs. xfce
    > desktop(Xubuntu).
    > You can install both, do a taste test, and uninstall one or the other if
    > you don't like it.
    > You can also install apps for gnome on xfce (and vice versa) if you need
    > something gnome does that xfce doesn't. Synaptic will install the required
    > dependencies automatically.


    When I was looking, it seemed to me as though xubuntu was a stripped down
    ubuntu. It's possible to run either from the "live" cd (which is how I
    tried them.)

    Ed



  5. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > "Wendell" wrote in message
    > news:47b31531$0$13876$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
    > : Eh?
    >
    > "Xubuntu?"
    >
    >


    Sorry I mis-tiped. The spell police are everywhere!!!

    Wendell

  6. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    Ed Edelenbos wrote:
    > "clay" wrote in message
    > news:%KFsj.283$Ru4.234@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
    >> Wendell wrote:
    >>> One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded.
    >>> The truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply
    >>> installed it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to me as I
    >>> was just trying to get my feet wet. I stepped into a couple of deep holes
    >>> but didn,t drown and just want to get rid of windoz. I may have had
    >>> xbuntu on a previous ver installed to try it out.
    >>>
    >>> My systems are older ( a few years) but they all have at least 1g of ram.
    >>> The slowest clock speed is 166 mh. I have run some serious graphics
    >>> programs on these machines with no problem.
    >>>
    >>> Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    >>> ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    >>> ties.
    >>>
    >>> I have other issues such as my scanner not working but I can address that
    >>> once I make the decision.
    >>>
    >>> Wendell

    >> afaik, they're the same under the hood. The difference is the graphical
    >> interface(GUI)... the things you can look at and click with your mouse.
    >> Xubuntu GUI requires less power to run, fundamentally by having less
    >> features, bells and whistles.
    >> I have both on a PIII 550 with 768 of PC100 and I don't see a significant
    >> performance delta between gnome desktop (Ubuntu) vs. xfce
    >> desktop(Xubuntu).
    >> You can install both, do a taste test, and uninstall one or the other if
    >> you don't like it.
    >> You can also install apps for gnome on xfce (and vice versa) if you need
    >> something gnome does that xfce doesn't. Synaptic will install the required
    >> dependencies automatically.

    >
    > When I was looking, it seemed to me as though xubuntu was a stripped down
    > ubuntu. It's possible to run either from the "live" cd (which is how I
    > tried them.)
    >
    > Ed
    >
    >


    What did you settle on.

    Wendell

  7. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu


    "Wendell" wrote in message
    news:47b35b5b$0$13895$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
    > Ed Edelenbos wrote:
    >>
    >> When I was looking, it seemed to me as though xubuntu was a stripped down
    >> ubuntu. It's possible to run either from the "live" cd (which is how I
    >> tried them.)
    >>
    >> Ed

    >
    > What did you settle on.
    >
    > Wendell


    Ubuntu. No real reason other than I got the impression xubuntu was stripped
    down for slower (and less powerful) machines. I figured mine had a fast
    enough processor and enough ram so I may as well go for ubuntu. And it had
    more included features (whether I need them or not is still anyones guess).
    I still don't *really* know the difference. I've only been up and running
    for a week or so.

    Ed



  8. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    Ed Edelenbos wrote:
    > "Wendell" wrote in message
    > news:47b35b5b$0$13895$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
    >> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
    >>> When I was looking, it seemed to me as though xubuntu was a stripped down
    >>> ubuntu. It's possible to run either from the "live" cd (which is how I
    >>> tried them.)
    >>>
    >>> Ed

    >> What did you settle on.
    >>
    >> Wendell

    >
    > Ubuntu. No real reason other than I got the impression xubuntu was stripped
    > down for slower (and less powerful) machines. I figured mine had a fast
    > enough processor and enough ram so I may as well go for ubuntu. And it had
    > more included features (whether I need them or not is still anyones guess).
    > I still don't *really* know the difference. I've only been up and running
    > for a week or so.
    >
    > Ed
    >
    >

    OK, you sound like me. :-)
    All the best and I will look around a little before I settle.

    Wendell

  9. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    Wendell wrote:
    > Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    > ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    > ties.


    All these Xubuntu vs Mint vs Ubuntu vs whateverBuntu, I don't understand
    any of them. Just install Ubuntu, then install and use any
    Window/Desktop manager you wish.

    --
    As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
    glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
    and this we should do freely and generously.
    --Benjamin Franklin

  10. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    johnny bobby bee writes:

    > Wendell wrote:
    >> Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead
    >> of ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before
    >> breaking the ties.

    >
    > All these Xubuntu vs Mint vs Ubuntu vs whateverBuntu, I don't
    > understand any of them. Just install Ubuntu, then install and use any
    > Window/Desktop manager you wish.


    Well said. Never a wiser word uttered. If you are a nOOb stay as
    mainstream as possible. You will find more help. When you are
    comfortable you can start playing in the cow pat strewn field of distro
    hell.

  11. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:36:57 -0500, Wendell wrote:

    > One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded. The
    > truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply installed
    > it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to me as I was just
    > trying to get my feet wet. I stepped into a couple of deep holes but
    > didn,t drown and just want to get rid of windoz. I may have had xbuntu
    > on a previous ver installed to try it out.
    >
    > My systems are older ( a few years) but they all have at least 1g of
    > ram. The slowest clock speed is 166 mh. I have run some serious graphics
    > programs on these machines with no problem.
    >
    > Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    > ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    > ties.
    >
    > I have other issues such as my scanner not working but I can address
    > that once I make the decision.
    >
    > Wendell


    Previously, I found that, for example, it was better to install Ubuntu
    and then the KDE desktop instead of Kubuntu - things simply worked out
    better. I have no authority to claim so, but it might be better to
    install Ubuntu and then add XFCE.

  12. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:24:48 -0800, clay wrote:

    > Wendell wrote:
    >> One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded. The
    >> truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply installed
    >> it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to me as I was just
    >> trying to get my feet wet. I stepped into a couple of deep holes but
    >> didn,t drown and just want to get rid of windoz. I may have had xbuntu
    >> on a previous ver installed to try it out.
    >>
    >> My systems are older ( a few years) but they all have at least 1g of
    >> ram. The slowest clock speed is 166 mh. I have run some serious
    >> graphics programs on these machines with no problem.
    >>
    >> Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    >> ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    >> ties.
    >>
    >> I have other issues such as my scanner not working but I can address
    >> that once I make the decision.
    >>
    >> Wendell

    >
    > afaik, they're the same under the hood. The difference is the graphical
    > interface(GUI)... the things you can look at and click with your mouse.
    > Xubuntu GUI requires less power to run, fundamentally by having less
    > features, bells and whistles.
    > I have both on a PIII 550 with 768 of PC100 and I don't see a
    > significant performance delta between gnome desktop (Ubuntu) vs. xfce
    > desktop(Xubuntu).
    > You can install both, do a taste test, and uninstall one or the other if
    > you don't like it.
    > You can also install apps for gnome on xfce (and vice versa) if you need
    > something gnome does that xfce doesn't. Synaptic will install the
    > required dependencies automatically.


    I've not looked at the Xubuntu setup, but one other difference may be the
    Desktop Manager - i.e. Ubuntu supplies gdm while Kubuntu supplies kdm.
    There is a significant difference in how they configure.

  13. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu


    "Wendell" wrote in message
    news:47b35dfa$0$13851$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
    > Ed Edelenbos wrote:
    >> "Wendell" wrote in message
    >> news:47b35b5b$0$13895$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
    >>> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
    >>>> When I was looking, it seemed to me as though xubuntu was a stripped
    >>>> down ubuntu. It's possible to run either from the "live" cd (which is
    >>>> how I tried them.)
    >>>>
    >>>> Ed
    >>> What did you settle on.
    >>>
    >>> Wendell

    >>
    >> Ubuntu. No real reason other than I got the impression xubuntu was
    >> stripped down for slower (and less powerful) machines. I figured mine
    >> had a fast enough processor and enough ram so I may as well go for
    >> ubuntu. And it had more included features (whether I need them or not is
    >> still anyones guess). I still don't *really* know the difference. I've
    >> only been up and running for a week or so.
    >>
    >> Ed

    > OK, you sound like me. :-)
    > All the best and I will look around a little before I settle.
    >
    > Wendell


    I found these:

    http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-421173.html

    http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...stions-505390/

    It almost seems like the answer is, install any of them. Once you find your
    way around, install the extras that do what you need.

    Ed



  14. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    ray writes:

    > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:36:57 -0500, Wendell wrote:
    >
    >> One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded. The
    >> truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply installed
    >> it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to me as I was just
    >> trying to get my feet wet. I stepped into a couple of deep holes but
    >> didn,t drown and just want to get rid of windoz. I may have had xbuntu
    >> on a previous ver installed to try it out.
    >>
    >> My systems are older ( a few years) but they all have at least 1g of
    >> ram. The slowest clock speed is 166 mh. I have run some serious graphics
    >> programs on these machines with no problem.
    >>
    >> Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    >> ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    >> ties.
    >>
    >> I have other issues such as my scanner not working but I can address
    >> that once I make the decision.
    >>
    >> Wendell

    >
    > Previously, I found that, for example, it was better to install Ubuntu
    > and then the KDE desktop instead of Kubuntu - things simply worked out
    > better. I have no authority to claim so, but it might be better to
    > install Ubuntu and then add XFCE.


    Watch it Ray. it's almost like you concur that distro hell
    exists. You'll be tarred and feathered if you tell the truth.

  15. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    ray illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    > <...>
    > I've not looked at the Xubuntu setup, but one other difference may be the
    > Desktop Manager - i.e. Ubuntu supplies gdm while Kubuntu supplies kdm.
    > There is a significant difference in how they configure.


    Xubuntu uses gdm.

    The differences between KDM and GDM are not a showstopper. You can
    run Gnome/XFCE using kdm and likewise KDE with gdm with no obvious
    differences.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  16. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    ray illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:36:57 -0500, Wendell wrote:
    >
    >> One of the wits in this group asked me why I had xbuntu loaded. The
    >> truth is, I don't know. I downloaded the 7.10 iso and simply installed
    >> it. I saw that it was xbuntu, but it didn't matter to me as I was just
    >> trying to get my feet wet. I stepped into a couple of deep holes but
    >> didn,t drown and just want to get rid of windoz. I may have had xbuntu
    >> on a previous ver installed to try it out.
    >>
    >> My systems are older ( a few years) but they all have at least 1g of
    >> ram. The slowest clock speed is 166 mh. I have run some serious graphics
    >> programs on these machines with no problem.
    >>
    >> Hence the subject line. Is there a trade off to using xbuntu instead of
    >> ubuntu? I just want to have a good system installed before breaking the
    >> ties.
    >>
    >> I have other issues such as my scanner not working but I can address
    >> that once I make the decision.
    >>
    >> Wendell

    >
    > Previously, I found that, for example, it was better to install Ubuntu
    > and then the KDE desktop instead of Kubuntu - things simply worked out
    > better. I have no authority to claim so, but it might be better to
    > install Ubuntu and then add XFCE.


    Yup. That's the way I have it. If I fancy a change, I can boot ubuntu
    and drop into K/X/Geo/buntu from my sessions menu without any fuss
    whatsoever.

    All you need is a couple of gigs extra disk space.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  17. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    * Moog :
    > The differences between KDM and GDM are not a showstopper. You can
    > run Gnome/XFCE using kdm and likewise KDE with gdm with no obvious
    > differences.


    Agreed with a minor exception. KDM seems to spawn a login shell. That
    is to say that '~/.profile', '~/.bash_profile', '~/.zprofile', etc. is
    processed as if the user had logged in via a terminal (virtual, network,
    etc.). GDM at least does not default to such behaviour.

    --
    James Michael Fultz
    Remove this part when replying ^^^^^^^^

  18. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    James Michael Fultz writes:

    > * Moog :
    >> The differences between KDM and GDM are not a showstopper. You can
    >> run Gnome/XFCE using kdm and likewise KDE with gdm with no obvious
    >> differences.

    >
    > Agreed with a minor exception. KDM seems to spawn a login shell. That
    > is to say that '~/.profile', '~/.bash_profile', '~/.zprofile', etc. is
    > processed as if the user had logged in via a terminal (virtual, network,
    > etc.). GDM at least does not default to such behaviour.


    Did this behaviour change recently. Suddenly a load of stuff stopped
    working (printing from command line being one) because the exports in my
    bashrc were not being picked up anymore. Or does Ubuntu and Debian (both
    gdm here) behave (sigh) differently? A quick google reveals LOTS of
    confusion with regard to what bash files are execd and when.

  19. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:14:43 +0000, Moog wrote:

    > ray illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    >> <...>
    >> I've not looked at the Xubuntu setup, but one other difference may be
    >> the Desktop Manager - i.e. Ubuntu supplies gdm while Kubuntu supplies
    >> kdm. There is a significant difference in how they configure.

    >
    > Xubuntu uses gdm.
    >
    > The differences between KDM and GDM are not a showstopper. You can run
    > Gnome/XFCE using kdm and likewise KDE with gdm with no obvious
    > differences.


    Agreed - but some folks prefer one over the other for various reasons. I
    happen to prefer gdm because it's easier to set up xdmcp - and I'm lazy.

  20. Re: xbuntu vs ubuntu

    On 2008-02-14, Hadron hit the keyboard and wrote:


    >>
    >> Previously, I found that, for example, it was better to install Ubuntu
    >> and then the KDE desktop instead of Kubuntu - things simply worked out
    >> better. I have no authority to claim so, but it might be better to
    >> install Ubuntu and then add XFCE.

    >
    > Watch it Ray. it's almost like you concur that distro hell
    > exists.


    "Choice" is "hell" to you? I'd probably ditched Gnu/Linux if
    there would have been *ONLY* Suse 6.2 around when I started
    out. Ditched it soon for Red Hat and then later for Caldera.
    So for me it was great that this *choice* of *many* distros
    was there, otherwise I might have switched to use M$
    instead. Perish the thought :-)


    > You'll be tarred and feathered if you tell the truth.


    You mean *your* kind of *warped* truth which exsists only in
    your head? Besides can you point out *WHO* got tarred and
    feathered? Another one of your unproven allegations.





    Dragomir Kollaric
    --
    This signature is licensed under the GPL and may be
    freely distributed as long as a copy of the GPL is included... :-)


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast