Choosing a Multimedia Linux Distro
For reasons I won’t go into yet, I decided to take my tried and true Debian server and turn it into a multimedia workstation.
The machine is a Shuttle barebones case with an Athlon XP 1700+ CPU, 2GB of RAM, and a ATI Radeon video card. It contains two WD 200GB drives, plus I’ve added a WD 1TB (I love writing that!) external USB drive.
The system isn’t exactly ideal for it, but my ultimate goal is to use it for video editing with Cinelerra in particular. My old Debian install had too many idiosyncracies to continue with, but I really wanted to stay with a distro in the Debian family, which I’m very familiar and happy with.
I narrowed the choice down to three options. There are other similar distros out there which might do (64Studio, Musix, for example), but these seemed like the best options for me:
- d y n e : b o l i c
Advantages
- plenty of great software, including Cinelerra
- uses low-resource window manager
- seems to have a good user base and a bit of history behind it
- made by Rastafarians!
Disadvantages
- doesn’t use Debian’s apt for package management, so you must wait for the next dyne:bolic release for upgrades
- pure:dyne
Advantages
- entirely Debian, with traditional package management
- uses low-resource window manager
- supported by Arts Council England
Disadvantages
- although it used to be based on dyne:bolic, the latest versions have been recreated from scratch from Debian, so there’s probably still work to do
- Ubuntu Studio
Advantages
- Ubuntu-based, so it will have plenty of support
Disadvantages
- uses Gnome
- doesn’t include Cinelerra
I tested all three, but I ended up using Ubuntu Studio. Why? Because of hardware problems of one sort or another. I’ll explain more later.
Comments are closed.