Is there a Linux distro with extensive GUI interface

I turn 78 next month. You can try various linux distributions using a live DVD . To make a live DVD you just download the .iso file and burn it to a dvd. There are other ways but that is the simlest. Then when you find the one you like , you can commit to installing it.

You will find most distributions like Mint come with a choice of GUI’s.
There are simple ones like Cinnamon, and larger ones like KDE, and lots in between. Choose what you are comfortable with.

It is a good idea to upgrade your old version of Mint, even if you just go to a newer Mint version.

Regards
Neville

4 Likes

And I thought, I was the crone here…

2 Likes

“The spirit never ages, it stays forever young”
I think it was C S Lewis

2 Likes

You people make me feel like a spring chicken, I’ll be 60 in a mere matter of weeks (April)…

1 Like

Beware of these birthdays that end in “0”
They are in limited supply
Cheers in advance
Neville

2 Likes

Hi Neville,

If you want to try KDE, “KDE neon” is a Ubuntu-based Linux distribution featuring the latest KDE Plasma desktop and other KDE community software. It is maintained directly by KDE team and is lighter with less bloat than Kubuntu. I have tried it and found it to be a very good distro for someone who wants the latest KDE Plasma desktop (8.9 rating on Distrowatch).

FOSS and Linux in particular let us build a truly custom system with any amount of work involved (from using ready made distro to buiding from the source code). MAC and Windows are pretty much limited to defaults. I was helping my neighbor to setup an iPad, installed Firefox browser from the Apple Store and was shocked to find out that the Firefox add-ons are not available for the iOS. Add-ons are one of the best features of Firefox that make the browser feature rich and easier to use. I always use Adguard or Ublock Origin to block ads, but on iPad, which costs 5 times the price of my Acer laptop I am forced to watch ads!

Regards,

Deby

1 Like

I am currently trying MX21-KDE, but I think I should have a look at Neon too. Thanks, I did not realize neon was better engineered. Had no trouble installing MX. Some of the apps are not performing for me. I am going to write that up when I finish.

I agree with you on the restrictive packaging that comes with Win or apple. In Linux or BSD we at least have full choice. The price we pay is having to invest a bit of time and effort.

Regards
Neville

I’ve tried MX Linux Xfce in the past. It is based on Debian and antiX. I’ve also installed antiX. Both are solid distros with antiX claiming to be so light that it can run on Pentium III with 256 MB RAM. In the end the “lightness” depends on the choice of DE and applications. In my experience Star Linux with LXDE was the lightest of all. Interestingly, MX Linux has steady and highest #1 DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking with user rating of 8.6 and Star has #159 Page Hit Ranking with user rating of 9.3!
I downloaded the latest Void image - “void-live-x86_64-20210930-xfce.iso” and tried it as live without install. So far it is very good and fast. I am very comfortable with using apt, synaptic and installing .deb packages, but I will install Void and see if I can get used to the Void’s package manager.

Regards,
Deby

I don’t really get all this light vs. “bloat” comparisons.

Modern computers (i.e. manufactured in the last 10 years) are powerful enough to run any DE without problems. If not, the question is: Is it really productive to run such outdated equipment?

2 Likes

It is all about not having a confusing mess on your desktop.
I dont like having to flea thru a pulldown list of about 50 apps, when I only ever use 5 of them.

Others seem to be big app users , and like having the full spectrum of available tools right there in the local system.

Doesnt phase me. Just need to choose a distro that is at about my simple level. I reserve my right to reject one that is too messy for me.

Regards
Neville

2 Likes

If that’s the case, then why do most “light” fanatics talk 80% of the time about stuff, the user never sees or would never notice, except they specifically search for something being supposedly “bloated”?

For example, why would you check if the dependencies an app needs, take 20 or 50MB on your disk? Who cares? Everyone has 50MB left on their main productive disk and it won’t hurt. Same with similar stuff, which nobody cares about, except “light” fanatics.

1 Like

That doesnt worry me. Disk space is cheap today. Its about screen space and how it is organised.

I think the question should be…why do makers of distros ( especially those that offer KDE), feel that they have to include everything ready for instant access with a screen button? What is wrong with having it all in the app store and offering a well designed app tool? By the way I like Discover in KDE - it is almost as well designed as the software centre in Solus/Budgie desktop. Android got that part right too.

Regards
Neville
PS
KDE work is proceeding. Decided I need to look at Neon as well as MX

One of the bigger reasons for that is the same reason why such distributions exist:

For you, it’s maybe tiresome to look at all the stuff you don’t need, etc. However, that’s a bit unfair, as you already shared earlier that you are extremely minimalistic in your demands and therefore you do not represent the “average user”, at all.

The “average user” wants things to work. They don’t want to think about it. They don’t want to install or uninstall anything. They just want to turn on the computer and do something. Like browse the internet, or log into an education portal. They do not care about what is installed or what is not installed. They start to care, if something is missing, however. For example, if Firefox is missing, that’s a big deal. Same with other very common apps. For example, if LibreOffice is missing, that’s a big impact for an average productive person. For you, it might seem unnecessary and should be put into the software centre for download, but many people would just see that as an unnecessary burden. They would think the opposite you think.
“Why didn’t they think to include such a basic program as LibreOffice in their distribution? Why do they make life hard for me?”
Therefore, on average, it’s better to have most common programs available, which you find unnecessary. It’s way easier for you to uninstall what you don’t need than to install what an average non-techy user needs.

Additionally, most issues arising from installation and uninstallation of programs arise during installation of programs. It’s most of the time super easy (except perhaps things like the Python interpreter…) to remove or uninstall the program. However, there are a million possibilities to screw up installing a program. You need to have the correct program and install it correctly, etc. Sometimes, as was shown in the video where Steam broke an entire operating system, even the native and official software centre breaks the OS.

So, all in all, it’s better to have more than needed available on first boot, than having to add everything manually, even if it is all available in the software centre.

1 Like

Android seems to have conquered that. Why cant desktop linux fix its package system(s)? I think Solus has made a good effort in that direction.

OK I accept average user want more than I seem to need. And I am not against the average user having that.

Its all about buttons to start programs. How much screen space should we take up with buttons, versus space to work in. Gnome3 uses the whole screen for buttons, and then several screens of them. I think there are better designs than that.

Lets take it to the extreme. Lets imagine Debian decided to make its own DTE with the whole 50000 or so items from its repository available on screen instantly. How workable would it be?

There is a balance of availability and workability

Regards
Neville

Okay, that’s a valid point, but it’s not directly related to how many programs are actually installed. It’s about how they are presented.

No at all. As mentioned above, this issue is about UX regarding how programs are presented. It’s not related to how much is actually available on the computer. Even if 50000 programs are installed, it would still be possible to hide most of them to enhance user experience.

Yes presentation is what we are debating.
I will say this about Discover, it just deals with stuff which will appear on the screen. System and utility packages are left to apt.
That might be a good separation.

Neville

I don’t understand the question: The KDE desktop in its standard version comes with NO desktop icons at all. For me, there are useless anyway, as I hardly ever see the background of my screens.

I also don’t see that problem: The different software centres all seem to do a pretty good job for me.
Unless, you’re trying to get Python to work (as @Akito mentioned) properly, it’s all very smooth.

2 Likes

I said buttons, meaning icons or pulldown menus. KDE uses pulldowns like xfce, gnome3 uses icons

Void brings up an icon for every filesystem it finds on your disk. While it can be useful, I wonder why a distro that is otherwise minimalist would do that. I am like you, no spare screen space. The scarce resource in computers used to be cpu time, now it is screen space.

The remark about package systems was a response to Akito saying that installing a package was difficult for the average user , then using this as an argument for having everything as a button on the screen.
So I suggested that fixing the package system to make installs easier would be a better solution than filling up the screen with buttons. I think Android got it right - minumum of icons as delivered and a beaut package system. Anyone can use google play, why cant anyone use app or synaptic or whatever.

Actually I agree with you Mina - the apt system , and xbps and Solus software centre all work pretty well for me

Regards
Neville

Okay, I fully understand that’s annoying. But – how is that related in any way to KDE? This has nothing to do with KDE.

No, I said, I understand what annoys you and it would annoy me, too. I’m just saying that you are complaining about KDE when in fact, the issue is not KDE related. That’s what I wanted to differentiate.

That’s not a direct solution to overloading the screen. If you don’t want a million icons on your desktop, then it’s not an issue with the package manager, but with the way packages are automatically displayed, without a sense for limits. So, again, you complain about one thing, when a totally different one is the culprit.

Because Google Play is made extremely simple, in terms of installing. That’s why there are in turn few options or more like no options, at all. Linux users usually like options.
Secondly, the major reason why that is possible, is because the way APKs for Android work is extremely restricted. You have a bajillion times more freedom when developing a program for a computer. You can pretty much always do, whatever you want. You have the ultimate freedom in terms of app development.
However, when developing an Android application, you will soon see how you are only allowed to use a very small subset of what you are used to, when developing an app for the PC or server.
It has so many restrictions, which leads to the apps being very streamlined, which again means, they are easy to handle and rarely cause issues.
That’s why it’s so easy to have Google Play work so often.

However, even those very restricted and streamlined APKs have issues. Sometimes you cannot even install them. It happens rarely, but it happens.

Now imagine how hard it would be to make a package manager for Linux handle all the different programs in a reliable way, when there is a bajillion more ways for something to simply not work.

An overloaded screen is not related to package management. If you want to fix an overloaded screen, you need to fight the issue causing the overloading, not where packages come from.

2 Likes

Thanks, I have never written a package for Android, but I suspected, as you say , that it lives in a straightjacket.

None of this has much to do with KDE directly. The discussion has drifted to exploring why distro developers make messy desktops. It is no wonder there are lots of distros, people are not satisfied with the current distros, so they make an ‘improved’ one.

When you consider that just about all a distro maker does is setup a package system, make some choices, and make a set of access buttons, … then it is obvious that getting the package system right is part of the way forward. The Solus Linux developers have this well thought out. They have actually stated that it is their intention to develop a superior package system… what they have now is I think already ahead of the others.

So maybe we should take a look at Solus with KDE. It would be interesting to see what the Solus team did there

How can I be a Void fan, but like Solus and Debian? Well they all have good points.

So forget about being KDE-focussed Akito. There are more things to do.

Regards
Neville

Yes, more options = more complexity

1 Like