Actual differences between recent distros?

[spikespiegal]

After not having touched Linux for quite awhile I ran into a situation with some older Dells at a non-profit where lost Windows CDs would have been a prime solution for Linux.

I tried Ubuntu, Mint, and a couple others (forget the names), and all met with failure due to a hardware incompatibility. That's a side rant, but anyways....

Is it just me, or do most of the latest Linux distros share pretty much the same installer? All the distros I used seemed to have the same installation sequence, and all had the same problem at the same point. After that experience, I got Ubuntu up and flying on a bunch of newer hardware - no problems. Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Ubuntu and a few others on every piece of hardware I had access to. Anytime I encountered a laptop or desktop using some goofy chip-set that Ubuntu didn't like, switching to another distro just resulted in having the same issue in the same location.

So, from an installation standpoint, are the latest distros sharing pretty much the same installer? Is there one in particular that does a better job with non-standard hardware?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

There are several different bases, with Debian and Ubuntu being the most popular. Distros based on Ubuntu will have similar installers/installation sequences. Mint is based on Ubuntu, so you will likely run into the same problems that you have with Ubuntu. I use Mandriva since I've had hardware issues with Ubuntu myself.

As for those issues you had with the Dell PCs, if they are fairly old then there may be issues with newer kernels, in which case you could try Puppy, Macpup (Puppy-based), Damn Small Linux (Debian-based), or other Mini distros.

One other major issue is ATI graphics, so if you ever run into an issue with a PC that has ATI graphics then swap in an Nvidia card if you can.

 

[spikespiegal]

Thanks for the clarification.

The hardware in this instance was the 845G integrated video, which as I learned has a big problem with Ubuntu and it's 'clones' running the latest installer / kernel. I was less irritated by the incompatibility than by the attitude I found when trying to trouble-shoot the issue. While these were older machines, the 845G might be the most prolific chipset to date and runs XP just fine.

I want to keep some distros in my bag for instances like this, but I want to keep a legitimate 'spread' of compatibility if you know what I mean and not just several versions that are otherwise identical except for the name.

I've hated ATI since the dawn of time and always found Nvidia to have the better driver set. However, ATI has been a bit of a darling on the server side in terms of integrated hardware, and I've never figured out why. Even with Server 2003 I've had instances of having to shut off hardware video acceleration with ATI to resolve bugs.

 

[lxskllr]

Here's what I'd carry for a nice Linux assortment to try. Keep in mind I'm a noob, so there may be overlap of base systems, but I like these for different reasons...

DSL
Puppy
Vanilla Ubuntu
Mandriva
OpenSuse

 

[pyr02k1]

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9-10-and-intel-845g-driver-765553/ has a solution to the chipset issue. but it wont help with the installation process itself as far as i can tell. cant recall if ubuntu will let you select repo packages during install. i havent run ubuntu as a permanent system in a long while now (3-4 years at least).

Generally, as a toolkit i keep around...
Sabayon (Gentoo Based)
Linux Mint (Ubuntu based)
Arch Linux (Believe its from scratch, but not positive)
Backtrack (Not sure, but used mostly for pentesting. works perfect as a data recovery disk).
Puppy (rocks with older hardware)

Then on hand I generally have Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo and the above all for installs if needed. I normally dont keep these all 100% up to date. Usually as an emergency disk if needed. Debian, Mint and Arch I always have up to date though as I use them the most for true installs.

As to the quote of ATI drivers being fail on linux... I havent had an issue with my 3870 since I purchased it. On the same note though, I also havent had to update that system in a while and usually only updated the drivers out of boredom every few months or so. The system is just a private network testing server for PHP code, so very few updates need to be done to it as its only for pre-production setup and never see's the net except to update.

 

[VinylxScratches]

I have a hard time choosing so I just picked up Debian. No reason to go anywhere else except for maybe CentOS since RedHat seems popular with corporations.

 

[Nothinman]

I have a hard time choosing so I just picked up Debian. No reason to go anywhere else except for maybe CentOS since RedHat seems popular with corporations.

Same here. People seem to like the changes Ubuntu has made in their presentation, but I don't and the fact that they don't have a rolling distribution like Debian sid kills it for me.

 

[lxskllr]

...but I don't and the fact that they don't have a rolling distribution like Debian sid kills it for me.

That's almost gotten me to switch. I like the Ubuntu package, but I'd like to have a rolling release like Debian. I wouldn't mind seeing Ubuntu use Debian's system, where they make an LTS release every 2 years, but have a testing branch with rolling updates. That way the LTS release could be thoroughly tested and solid, but those that want newer can take the risks.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

As to the quote of ATI drivers being fail on linux... I havent had an issue with my 3870 since I purchased it.

Good luck getting ATI to continue to support that card. The sad fact is that they drop support way sooner than Nvidia, even on Windows. Here's one example where ATI was causing problems, and simply switching to the onboard Unichrome (VIA) chipset worked. In that case, the card causing problems was an X1650, a GPU released in 2006 and that is no longer supported (including Windows).

AMD's support page

The Linux ATI Catalyst™ driver will only be supported in Linux distributions prior to February 2009 for the legacy products listed above.

 

[sourceninja]

Did you try ubuntu's alternate installer?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Nvidia has moved a number of their GPUs to legacy status, yet they continue to update the drivers.

Nvidia legacy drivers

The following GPUs are no longer supported in the regular NVIDIA Unified UNIX Graphics Driver. Instead, these GPUs will continue to be supported through special "Legacy GPU" drivers that will be updated periodically to add support for new versions of Linux system components (e.g., new Linux kernels, new versions of the X server, etc).

According to that page, they still support even the Riva TNT GPU which was released in 1998.

I'll stop now and let this thread get back on topic. I have no experience with the 845G chipset, so I can't help with that.

 

[spikespiegal]

Just my opinion, but it would seem the latest installer used for Ubuntu and similiar are becoming too 'dumbed down' in an attempt to get people to try it. Perhaps the installer should give more options. Maybe there's something to be said of loading the most generic and legacy driver set known to work and then letting the user upgrade accordingly. But, what do I know.

When I ran around and tried random machines to see what would/wouldn't barf on the Ubuntu installer I was stunned to see the high percentage of machines that either froze on the installation process or just black screened. It was such a wide variety of different platforms I stopped keeping notes.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Just my opinion, but it would seem the latest installer used for Ubuntu and similiar are becoming too 'dumbed down' in an attempt to get people to try it. Perhaps the installer should give more options. Maybe there's something to be said of loading the most generic and legacy driver set known to work and then letting the user upgrade accordingly. But, what do I know.

When I ran around and tried random machines to see what would/wouldn't barf on the Ubuntu installer I was stunned to see the high percentage of machines that either froze on the installation process or just black screened. It was such a wide variety of different platforms I stopped keeping notes.

I'd be willing to bet many of those older machines will have trouble with many of the newer distros, simply because they are legacy machines and some hardware support has been dropped. For those machines, stick with something that does support older machines, even vanilla Debian. If you really want to use Ubuntu, try the alternate install CD.

 

[JD50]

I'd give Fedora or CentOS a try. If you're willing to spend some money then use Red Hat, you can get support if you're having hardware issues.

Edit - If you're looking for something to install and not have to worry about for more than a year, then go with CentOS or Red Hat. If you use Fedora you'll need to update/upgrade a lot more often. Fedora only releases updates for 13 months, after that you'd need to upgrade.

 

[todpod]

I just installed Ubuntu 10.04 on 2 systems that only have 256 megabytes of memory and had it installed on a system with 128 all using the live cd, but it wouldn't install on my good box because of the ati video card, but i am happily running a nvida card now

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i think mint gives the best experience since it is reasonably stable (you can run it for weeks at a time) and has all the multimedia stuff youd want. i have found suse and centos to be somewhat unstable to the point that i wouldnt recommend them. puppy is nice but the browsers crash a lot (it just spontaneously closes down) in all the recent versions.

video support is a little dicey with mint though. i think im using a gigabyte radeon card right now after unsuccessfully trying a bunch of nvidia cards. if youre using intel video youll be fine

 

[electroju]

ATI graphics or AMD graphics writes the worst programs that I have ever seen from a reputable company. Their software should never be used. 3rd-party software is recommended for ATI or AMD graphics for the best stability and reliability. The ATI X1650 causing problems is related to the drivers and not the card. If you use open source drivers from Xorg or XFree86 will work just fine. If I can not use 3rd-party for ATI or AMD graphics, it becomes crapware.

I am against using Ubuntu because I do not like it. I do not like it because it does not install correctly on my setups. Its custom kernel does not relate the storage device order that my BIOS sees to the kernel in the same order, so I have to manually fix it. I can fix it, but it is pain to fix it. Also some packages have issues, so I have to fix them. I can not recommend Ubuntu to anybody. Ubuntu basically goes for the new and who cares what actually works.

I use Sabayon on old before 2000 and new setups. I only use it to test, use it as a LIVE Linux distribution, and to install Gentoo. I also use it fix systems. I do not install it on my desktops or notebooks because it consumes too much resources. On my desktops or notebooks, I use Gentoo. Gentoo is the better than any distribution that I have tried. I tried several. Gentoo works on old and new. Gentoo can also work for embeds.

Not all distributions uses the same installer. It depends on the distribution. They may make their own installer or use a custom script for an installer. The kernel version is about the same, but each distribution may include patches that changes how the kernel works. Each distribution supports the same amount of hardware, so there is very little difference between one distribution and to the other distribution.

 

[JD50]

i think mint gives the best experience since it is reasonably stable (you can run it for weeks at a time) and has all the multimedia stuff youd want. i have found suse and centos to be somewhat unstable to the point that i wouldnt recommend them. puppy is nice but the browsers crash a lot (it just spontaneously closes down) in all the recent versions.

video support is a little dicey with mint though. i think im using a gigabyte radeon card right now after unsuccessfully trying a bunch of nvidia cards. if youre using intel video youll be fine

How were you using CentOS that you found it unstable? CentOS and RHEL is about as stable a distro as you're gonna find...

 

[VinDSL]

Is there one in particular that does a better job with non-standard hardware?

I use Puppy Linux on oddballs/doorstop machines.

The jury is still out on Puppy Linux 5.x (built from Ubuntu Linux 10.04). Truthfully, I don't care for it. And, I'm a Ubuntu fanboi...

In my experience, Puppy Linux 4.x will run on anything.

Of all the Puppy forks, I like Macpup Opera 2.0 (built from Puppy Linux 4.3.1).

I'm running Macpup on a (circa 1999) eMachines eTower 667ir

LoL! This computer is as bad as it gets...

• Intel Celeron Processor 667MHz
• Intel 810 chipset, 66MHz FSB
• Intel 82801 AC ’97 Audio
• Intel Direct 3D 2x AGP
• 192MB SDRAM
• 15GB HDD

Nothing would run on this except Windows ME and Puppy Linux 4.x :awe:

You might want to give it a try...