 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Encyclopedia
Raven
Joined: Apr 12, 2008
Posts: 110
Location: Utah
|
 Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: What's the best Linux distro? |
 |
|
| I wonder which one to choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
![]()
Joined: Sep 07, 2007
Posts: 362
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Fuzzy
Ack! Thbbbt!
Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 1931
Location: Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
www.ubuntu.com
will be the premier flavour of linux, if it isnt already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
polarity
Toucan
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
For?
For me it's:
Speed = Gentoo
Security = OpenBSD
Ease of use = Ubuntu
_________________
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
kip
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 14, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 688
Location: Las Vegas NV USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Suse or OpenSuse are both good distros too.
I personally use Ubuntu just cause it's pretty 
But for the powerhouse in the bedroom, it's gotta be Suse.
If you're looking to switch for the first time, I would DEFINITELY use Ubuntu. I gave it to mum, who hasn't even had a computer in years, and she had no problem figuring it out. Its laid out enough like windows a first time user doesn't get lost, and the forum family are quite knowledgeable.
Another thing you could try is getting a few LiveCDs of different distros and trying them out. Then you could tell what one really fits you.
Just avoid 64Studio. Didn't work for crap, and theres something wrong with a 32 bit port of a 64 bit os that was ported from another 32 bit os. It's buggy beyond all reason |
|
| Back to top |
|
tomadao
Raven
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Age: 17
Posts: 115
Location: Sitting on the toilet
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
For me, it's Slackware.
FreeBSD and OpenBSD are not Linux distros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
![]()
Joined: Sep 07, 2007
Posts: 362
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Encyclopedia
Raven
Joined: Apr 12, 2008
Posts: 110
Location: Utah
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know the BSD's aren't technically Linux because they don't use the Linux kernel, but if they can run the same software, I would consider them too. Can they?
@tomadao Why do you like Slackware? It doesn't exactly have a reputation for user friendliness.
What advantages does OpenSuse have? I had to use OpenSuse in my Linux class, and it didn't seem as friendly as Ubuntu.
I have a Core 2 Duo. That will run 64 bit Linux, won't it? Are there any advantages/disadvantages to running 64-bit Linux instead of 32-bit?
I see several recommendations for Ubuntu. It certainly appears to be the most popular distro at the moment. It looks like Canonical officially supports Kubuntu and xubuntu as well, and it looks like the only difference is some packages. Ubuntu uses GNOME and Kubuntu uses KDE. xubuntu uses Xfce and has some other lighter packages installed by default. (Like abiword and gnumeric instead of openoffice.org)
I noticed Xfce lets you put icons on the desktop now. It also has a new file manager called Thunar. Xfce supports GTK+. Is there anything GNOME can do that Xfce can't? And what exactly is the difference between KDE and GNOME? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fuzzy
Ack! Thbbbt!
Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 1931
Location: Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KDE GNOME and xfce are more like front ends for ubuntu. They are not just the appearance.
here is how it works to my knowledge.
You have the kernel, which is the bare bones of the operating system. It talks to the bios, which runs the hardware. It interfaces the applications to the hardware.
On top of that you have things like the file system. This is the minimal level at which work can be done by a human.
Above that we have the desktop environments, like GNOME. they allow a nice interface for the human and the machine. They dont all do things the same way. For example, KDE activates things with a single mouse press. They also arrange their menus differently.
KDE is heaviest on a machine, while xcfe is lightweight. There are actually less memory intensive desktop managers than xcfe, but thats the lowest that Canonical supports.
Above that you have special stuff, like compiz, which adds graphical glitz and effects to the desktop. Almost purely for show. I dont think xfce will run compiz for example.
Then, one layer above that you have the custom themes for the operating system. Custom log in screens, desktop wallpaper.. specially designed menu bars..
In ubuntu you can switch between Gnome, KDE and xcfe at the log in screen. Have a look here.. http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/xubuntu http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kde
and a comparison of KDE and Gnome. http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kdegnome
I use Gnome, but having looked at xcfe i can see some themes that look even nicer than Gnome. When I did a test install of Xubuntu I got it pared down to 140 megs of ram at idle. with youtube running, it was still only 150 some. That was xubuntu 7.10, released in october 2007! Compare that to vista, which eats a good gig without doing anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
yesplease
Velociraptor
Joined: Dec 29, 2006
Age: 102
Posts: 414
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ubuntu seems to be one of the "easier" distros in that it's preconfigured for the most part, although IMO it seems kinda kludgy, like Fedora and openSUSE. On the other end of the spectrum and distros like Gentoo and Arch Linux, which are minimal from the start, with users adding what they want. I like Arch compared to Gentoo since I don't need to compile much with specific options, and PKGBUILDs are fairly easy to use, although I imagine for something like PPC, or IME a K6-2, Gentoo would be where I would go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
supahneko
Darned cat...
Joined: Jan 31, 2008
Age: 16
Posts: 1990
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Xubuntu. It's light on resources and it has a good user interface and stability.
_________________
5th virtue: Patience
IRC channel: irc://freenode/threadkillers |
|
| Back to top |
|
polarity
Toucan
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
All the BSDs have Linux binary emulation built into the kernel (they just need some libraries adding). It's also pretty simple to modify Linux source code to run on a BSD box natively. The only real differences are the kernel, the kind of file system used, and the way devices are handled. They all run a lot of the same software, like KDE/Gnome, GIMP, so to the average Joe look the same, when compared to Windows or OSX.
I've only really used OpenBSD (and OSX).
NetBSD runs on almost anything, but doesn't seem to be maintained well enough to make it useful on any of the stranger hardware (My Jornada 720 has JLime Linux instead of the hpcarm port of NetBSD, because JLime is actually usable without compiling everything from source, all without any docs, or even platform specific source code).
FreeBSD seems to have been going downhill, and seems to carry too much old code to be updated properly, or run as well as it could (I ended up using Gentoo on my Dell PowerEdge 1950 game server, because FreeBSD hasn't been updated to include 64bit Linux binary emulation, despite 64 bit being the norm for years, and the FreeBSD side being 64bit. The BF2 server package is 64bit unless you're happy running an older buggy version).
DragonFlyBSD looks to be something with amazing potential, but it's a still pretty new, so doesn't support as much hardware/software as the others. It's being developed as a Virtual Machine hosting platform, and has a lot of very up to date programming ideas going into it to maximise performance.
OpenBSD is the one I've been using constantly for 6 years on my firewall/gateway/router/load balancer/web server (and it got me using OSX instead of Vista, because underneath it's BSD). It's designed from the ground up to be as secure as possible, so it's very well coded (because doing the regular security audits on the whole codebase would be a lot harder otherwise), and easy to use in some respects because if it wasn't you'd take shortcuts that would reduce the security. It's not really a desktop system, although you can get all the usual stuff for it. It's more tailored to be run on a firewall/web/mail server, and has a lot of tricks for that purpose that won't be found outside very expensive hardware from companies like Cisco.
_________________
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
![]()
Joined: Sep 07, 2007
Posts: 362
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Encyclopedia wrote: | | I know the BSD's aren't technically Linux because they don't use the Linux kernel, but if they can run the same software, I would consider them too. Can they? |
It's not just through it's Linux binary compatibility that you'd be running the same software, FreeBSD's ports collection has most of the available (Open Source) software ready to be compiled and installed. It's 'make install clean' ease of use is one of the reasons I like FreeBSD.
KDE, GNOME and XFCE are (graphical) desktop environments running on X, you can install them all and many applications can be used in either DE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
nodice1996
Velociraptor
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Age: 12
Posts: 413
Location: Clinton,MI,USA,Earth, The Milky Way, The Universe,Unknown
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Redhat, fedora is the same but free. Run Fedora!
_________________
You think I'm strange, you aint seen nothin' yet! |
|
| Back to top |
|
lau
Quinquaginta Novem! Male Gee-knee-us + silly bits.
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Age: 59
Posts: 7053
Location: Somerset UK
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: Re: What's the best Linux distro? |
|
|
| Encyclopedia wrote: | | I wonder which one to choose. |
Why choose?
Try them all.
Multiboot.
It's no hassle to share/transfer data between them.
Eventually, you can pick one that you like as your "main" distro, and use VirtualBox to run everything else you like simultaneously.
_________________
Oregano, n: The ancient Italian art of pizza folding.
Laws:
Ogden: The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Oliver: Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
Osborn: Variables won't; constants aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
