Poll: Which Linux distro should we support next?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Other (reply to post which)
Ubuntu is enough, thank you
369 vote(s)
* You voted for this item.

  • 1(current)
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Which Linux distro should XBMC officially support next?
Now that Ubuntu is stabilizing...which linux distro should we officially support next
I'll hold my vote for now. I'll just note that Intel is changing platform for Moblin to Fedora was it?
Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.

Hehe.. Did I miss something. I didn't think anything was "officially" supported yet?

Anyhow. I'd like to put in a vote for Arch Linux. It's a great distro that lends itself well to a customised HTPC application. No bloat, largely custom built by the end user, but simple to use and configure. I know you'll probably base the decision on stats from distrowatch but I'll put in a vote for Arch anyhow.

An Arch user already supplies a custom built SVN of XBMC via repository but it would be fantastic to see some of the devs take a look at Arch and the way it works.

One of the advantages is that it's a rolling distribution so it's always at the latest. Could be an advantage to you. Could be the opposite. But the beauty is that once you install you don't ever have to go and reinstall your OS in order to "re-code" for the next release.


Debian Sid

(There is a difference.)
I voted Gentoo, myself.

Lots of linux users wouldn't use it for desktop use because it can be a little tougher and because of all the compiling, though it is often used to make stripped down bootcds, livecds, etc. I believe that it would make an excellent distro for XBMC, not only as an official package (though there is a great/working ebuild out there), but as an entire platform customized from scratch for livecd/liveusb/etc.

Also, I think that a rather important option was left off: 64bit. Whether implemented as 64bit Ubuntu, or a 64bit version of all supported 32bit distro's, I think it's very important not to ignore.

My $.02
I use and recommend arch too.
I would have thought ubuntu is enough to support for the meantime.

Personally I'd like to see focus towards (the future goal?) of running a completely stripped base system.
I like the idea of booting xbmc from an embedded flash image/network boot/whatever relatively quickly (limited by bytes, file structure and device speed).
I'd like the possibility of running without a hard disk, ram is cheap and we're all running fast 64bit hardware (right?) - I'd like to be able to add a full web browser(for eg.), and is any kind of suspend/resume possible without using a system disk? (no)
Maybe something similar to geexboxs' iso generator could be considered?

Because 'I'd like' this this stuff I reckon you should do it
I don't understand why you guys would be interested in supporting additional distros. Isn't the idea ultimately to get XBMC working on a flash drive install with its own X-server, etc? Or do you plan to continue developing XBMC as a standalone application running in a standard desktop environment? Or both?
If we used openSUSE Build Service then we could make RPMs that supports openSUSE, SUSE Linux, Debian Etch, Fedora, Red Hat, CentOS, Mandriva, and Ubuntu (including Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.)

Please keep the discussion about openSUSE Build Service in this other thread here:

PS! Personally though I think the next step for us should be to concentrate our own XBMC LiveUSB/LiveCD Distro.
Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.
(Other) Arch Linux
theuni; good thing xbmc compiles 64bit now then so you are satisfied (even if not particularly up to date)
Right now there's lots of active development so it's no big deal that Ubuntu releases every six months. But I'd hope that within a year the linux version is as stable as the XBMC 2.0.1 for xbox version -- which was so good I never had a reason to upgrade (YMMV).

As many of us recently experienced, upgrading from 7.10 to 8.04 had a few snags and took some time. I'm looking forward to the time when I rarely think about the HTPC under my TV, the way I rarely think about my server running Debian stable, which has distro upgrades infrequently.
XBMC machine: ABIT AN-M2HD with nVidia 7050 onboard (Ubuntu Hardy + latest nVidia driver), AMD Athlon BE-2350, Microsoft MCE IR Remote, Logitech PS3 USB keyboard, 33w idle, 53w max, 720p plasma over HDMI
Yet another vote for Arch linux here. It's the ideal compromise between Gentoo and Debian, defaults to binary installation on a rolling release yet easy to build from source as well.

64bit works great here (gentoo too, no less) so I have no complaints. I've been under the impression, though, that it wasn't officially supported. Maybe that's changed.. if so I apologize and great work
no reason to apologize just wanted to inform you (and you seem to be informed then).

yes, it's as officially supported as 32-bit
Ubuntu is fine but IMO a stripped distro that could be run via flash, CD, or other means based on existing work is a better end goal than another full install distro. <shrug>
Openelec Gotham, MCE remote(s), Intel i3 NUC, DVDs fed from unRAID cataloged by DVD Profiler. HD-DVD encoded with Handbrake to x.264. Yamaha receiver(s)
  • 1(current)
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Which Linux distro should XBMC officially support next?1
This forum uses Lukasz Tkacz MyBB addons.