Linux Lite Xfce vs. Xubuntu

[newtusmaximus]

There are other distros that might be a better fit for others, and certainly variety is what makes gnuLinux great

However, I think that it is the variety that makes the change over to linux so confusing and hence why it took me so long to convert; especially as I needed my hardware to function for work purposes.  I simply had little time to spend trying all these flavours which in many cases were difficult to set up.

When buying a computer or hardware you expected it to work and hence the OS is supplied with it as part of the purchase. I.e. out of the box working.

That in my opinion is what LL is all about, to fulfil that function. The LL software  starter addons are a bonus.

I am afraid the perception of Linux is that it is for geeks who love tinkering, and it is because of this that Linux has failed so far to make real penetration.

Promoting LL will go a long way to overcome this situation, and as it develops , its use should be encouraged, even at school level.    The UK government is starting to encourage the use of open source documentation, so that is a start.

Sadly, I liken the situation as to the overthrow of a dictator, chaos ensues.
Instead of all these flavours of Linux scrambling over, and in some cases competing with, each other, it would be more sensible that the linux fraternity combine to make one OS, rock solid, that works for the vast majority of day to day users.  Or am I being naive ?

[ptyerman]

And a sincere thanks to you and the team for making LinuxLite.

I second that wholeheartedly!
Although I have ran various distro's on and off as a dual boot for nearly 20 years, I still consider myself a Linux noob. Running Linux Lite has been a breath of fresh air for me. I can't quite put my finger on it but, there is something LL has/does/way it does it that gives it a pleasant feel, just like the Amiga or BeOS did back in the day.
I have a home built CCTV system that is currently running Xubuntu, but that will be running Linux Lite too before long. XFCE on Ubuntu is nothing like XFCE on Linux Lite.
I still have Windows 7 installed on this system on a separate drive, but it's now almost 5 month since I booted into it, Linux Lite all the way!  8)

[m654321]

Hi,

LL really cuts it for me over any other distro (including Xubuntu) or Windows OS, for the following
reasons in order of importance (most important first):

1. The  LL forum: a real community of ever-helpful members who are willing to share their time and
    knowledge, and very importantly,  to match your level of understanding.  Ubuntu, Mint & Zorin
    forums seem much larger and as a result you feel somewhat anonymous, and so not quite
    the same feel of community about them - a unique selling point of LL

2. LL is easy to use for ex-Windows-OS users, particularly those who are not power users, e.g the familiarity of
    desktop layout and its intuitive gui which, and very importantly, does away with a need for
    command line
   
3. Applications rather than the package names are used - this gives clarity particularly for noobs who
    are not familiar with linux package names

4. Lightweight & does a great job of  resurrecting older PCs.  My sister got a pleasant surprise when
    I brought her Vista-run Toshiba Satellite Pro A300 back to life with LL2.8 - she was going to replace
    it, but has instead decided to keep it. She's delighted with the saving she's made!

5. Privacy issues - with LL and Linux more generally, I can avoid all the security & privacy issues that
    have been highlighted for win10 and I don't have the likes of Microsoft pressuring me to sign up to
    them.

Regards
Mike

[coop31]

Linux Lite: If you want a solid out of box experience. By default, is visually pleasing and very little configuration is required. It's lighter weight so while it will take up less space, it does not include certain pieces of software by default. Major down side is the extremely infrequent release date. Use if you are not concerned about getting the most recent features and software.

Xubuntu: If you don't mind having to make some changes to get the experience you want. More frequent releases mean your getting the best experience. A more complete OS by default so it takes up more space.

[shaggytwodope]

Major down side is the extremely infrequent release date

Can you elaborate? How would more releases improve things? Is there a gap in anything you feel needs attention?

[Teddy]

LL is certainly better than Xubuntu in my opinion. More community support, team who is willing to put the effort forth to improve the distro release by release. LL is optimized for Windows users with less of a learning curve than most distros.

Xubuntu really doesn't care what goes in their distro, so they in turn have poorer quality control.

To put in the context of automobiles (my area of expertise) -

Linux Lite is like a reliable Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. Your always sure that it will start up and run & boot properly. It might be boring, but it doesn't have to be!

Xubuntu is akin to a Land Rover or Jaguar. Your always crossing your fingers to whether it will start up, run & boot tomorrow morning. That's how I always felt when I booted regular Ubuntu and Xubuntu.

Sent from my Note 3 using the Tapatalk Android app.

[newtusmaximus]

If we take a lesson from XP,  my understanding is that the frequent updates were mainly to counter security issues / vulnerabilities.
The fact that XP was relatively  "light" and stable on the machine that it was supplied with as the main OS, and that drivers for ancillary hardware were readily available, if not already included, meant that the user could get on with using their equipment and not have to worry about breakdowns.

LL performs that function. It is still a relatively young distribution, but "old" heads are developing it. The KISS principle applies.

Once an OS works on a users hardware, there is theoretically no reason why that OS needs to be changed unless more advanced software packages are needed by the user or there are new security threats.

I believe that there are a considerable number of users still with XP (11% ?), ignoring the possible future vulnerabilities, precisely because they are comfortable with what they have got.

Hence why I choose LL.  No frills, solid performance.

[nomko]

LL is certainly better than Xubuntu in my opinion. More community support,

Not sure about that last statement, the (*)buntu forum (is quit large and very active. This forum doesn't show that much activity as the English Ubuntu forum. Also i notice that there are a few regulars here, so compared to the (*)buntu forum the availability of knowledge is much slimmer here. And therefore the community support on the (*)buntu forum is much better, there's always someone who comes up with the right answer or has better knowledge of certain items. The lesser people, the lesser that knowledge is available. On the other hand, the lesser people providing info, the easier to check the provided info.

team who is willing to put the effort forth to improve the distro release by release. LL is optimized for Windows users with less of a learning curve than most distros.

There are other distros' out there aiming for Windows users making it easier for them. Distro's like Zorin, Linux Mint and many more. So, no. Not only LL is aiming for "Windows refugees" but also other distro's. The only point left here now is indeed the learning curve issue. Which distro will these "Windows refugees" learn the quickest the use? My point here is, the easier the lay-out, the more out-of-the-box a distro is, the lesser drivers to install the better it is, that distro will be the winner.

Xubuntu really doesn't care what goes in their distro, so they in turn have poorer quality control.

I won't say that. The problem is, Xubuntu is pure Ubuntu with the Xfce desktop. So the Xubuntu people are tied to whatever Canonical is doing with Ubuntu. By removing the Unity desktop they also remove some (standard) Unity/Ubuntu applications. Adding the Xfce desktop means also adding specific Xfce applications and tools. We all know that removing 1 thing, replacing it with another might lead to improved or more worse quality. Just take a good look at Linux Lite, it is Ubuntu based, it doesn't have some of those Ubuntu/Unity features (consider this as an improvement), but at the other hand, some users might like 1 or 2 of those Ubuntu features which aren't available under Linux Lite (consider this as worse quality). The best Ubuntu feature LL is using is the fact that the latest version of LL is based on Ubuntu LTS (14.04.*), a big quality improvement compared to those "in between" versions of Ubuntu.

You compared LL with cars, so let me do it also. You compared LL with a reliable Honda Accord. Fine, but let's take that same Honda Accord and give it to a tuning company. They put a nice shiny turbo on the engine, finetune the motor management system, replace the standard factory gearbox with an racing gearbox, lower the car, add racing spring supports, race seats, another exhaust system and to finish it the car gets a nice paint job. Well, i can tell you right now, that reliable Honda Accord turned into a, somewhat, unreliable car. Who's gonna tell me that i can still drive 200.000 km with that same car? And what about the engine? Is that engine really build to produce more rpm's with that turbo installed? And how about the fuel consumption? That must have dropped a lot! Is the adhesion to the road still the same? For you this might be a hugh quality improvement, but to others..... they won't even want to look at your tuned Honda accord and they start to complain about the noise your car is producing. So, to be in short, tuning that Honda Accord is just an example of poorer quality control neglecting the results of all those changes....

I rather have a solid Range Rover than a tuned, noisy, bad driving, fuel hungry Honda Accord

[firenice03]

The VS. battle will rage on, would you like the correct answer???.. I can tell you 100% the winner of either VS question... Is neither and either...  :-X
And the same for cars... Die hard Chevy fans won't like Ford let alone a "tuned, noisy, bad driving, fuel hungry Honda Accord" OR a properly tuned and ported correctly set up and dyno'd JDM Honda, Acura, Nissan or xxxx...

It's going to be in the eye of the beholder and the hardware they run... Even if the exact same systems are used... Its preference.. Some folks like the color green, some don't..

A 2 door '57 Chevy pristine and clean sitting at the car show is a slick ride (IMHO); is that to say every other Chevy built at the time or since then hasn't added something??

Honestly comparing various makes of cars to each other are apples to oranges... Ubuntu to Red Hat, but I understand the posters point of view..

Take Scion, inexpensive as compared to Toyota both have a multitude of available features... But what do you need then on top what do you want?? Scion or Toyota (same manufacture), 2 door or 4 door, new or used, can you splurge on extra hardware (TRD) are you looking for street or dirt and how big is wallet (mouths to feed??)
Now take into consideration... Scion has a following, the FRS is popular, popular enough that its being re-badged as the Toyota 86 (historically a Toyota icon)...
If derivatives of the parent have something that works, the parent will eventually incorporate it...

The same for Ubuntu vs Debian; MATE vs XFCE; XYZ xfce vs ZYX xfce..

I personally haven't tried Xubuntu; I have tried others.. They were all good but for me LL won.. Its my Scion XB 4 door, reliable, good on gas yet with a 5speed feels sporty.. Mostly my to and from work and kids baseball car...
But I do have a Tahoe for towing, van for trips and comfort (wife's day to day) and 4runner for strictly off-road...
Not to mention all previously owned and then a wish-list of others upon winning lotto's.... 8)

My plugged nickle... maybe I'm wrong..

[m654321]

There are other distros' out there aiming for Windows users making it easier for them. Distro's like Zorin, Linux Mint and many more. So, no. Not only LL is aiming for "Windows refugees" but also other distro's. The only point left here now is indeed the learning curve issue. Which distro will these "Windows refugees" learn the quickest the use? My point here is, the easier the lay-out, the more out-of-the-box a distro is, the lesser drivers to install the better it is, that distro will be the winner.

Thanks Nomko for your thoughts. 
Yes, you're right, there are quite a few distros out there aiming at Windows users. However, for me personally, LL does this more effectively than the others.  For example, I was put off by my experience with Zorin Ultimate (both 6.4 & 9 LTS), as there was a lot of instability with the AWN feature - several crashes & lots of time wasted as a result.  I have found the learning curve with Zorin & Linux Mint to be significantly slower than with LL, as there was not such a rapid and personalised response from their forum communities as they are so much bigger than LL's: those offering help didn't quite pitch it at my somewhat elementary level, being a linux newbie.  A shame really, as the Zorin team have worked very hard and produced a very attractive distro that is very easy to use for ex-Windows users. I continue to consider myself a Linux-newbie, 2 years on from WinXP, as Linux seems to be so vast in what it encompasses and has to offer.

Elsewhere in your critique, you mention forum size: you say the other communities are better as they are larger, LL having 'fewer regulars'.  For me 'size doesn't matter' so much. Of more importance, for me personally, is the open-spirited nature & very positive attitude of the developers and other here in helping others out, and of course their great knowledge & experience which has always helped me. 

I get the impression you are new on this forum.  I've been a member for two years. Stick around a bit more and I'm sure you'll benefit from being a part of the community, whether you're a seasoned Linux-user or newbie...

Take care
Mike