Best **FREE** Linux distro available on the web?

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Debian would probably be 4th. As far as usability, and how much I like the OS, I would put Debian 2nd. Possibly only because I have not use NetBSD yet 😉

/me nudges n0c.. 😉

Debian above solaris eh?

What I don't like about debian is that *EVERYTHING* is a package, and sometimes following the "debian way* isn't what you feel like doing. Thankfully they made it so that installing your own kernel the non-debian way doesn't really muck things up. In general I liked debian alot, but I definitely had some nit-picks with it, but that is expected with everything. NetBSD is not 100% exactly what I would call a perfect OS either, but I would say it is closer to it than anything else.

 

[Nothinman]

Debian above solaris eh?

For usability, most definatly.

What I don't like about debian is that *EVERYTHING* is a package, and sometimes following the "debian way* isn't what you feel like doing

If everything wasn't a package the whole ease of management would go out the door. The reason they can package 5 SMTP servers is because all of them are packages that are interchangable.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Debian above solaris eh?

For usability, most definatly.

I always assumed the same, however I thought n0c had a soft spot for solaris or something 😛

What I don't like about debian is that *EVERYTHING* is a package, and sometimes following the "debian way* isn't what you feel like doing

If everything wasn't a package the whole ease of management would go out the door. The reason they can package 5 SMTP servers is because all of them are packages that are interchangable.

Starting from version 1.4 of NetBSD sendmail is not called directly:

$ ls -l /usr/sbin/sendmail
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 21 Nov 1 01:14 /usr/sbin/sendmail@ -> /usr/sbin/mailwrapper

The purpose of mailwrapper is to allow the usage of an alternative MTA instead of sendmail (for example, postfix). If you plan to use a different mailer I suggest that you read the mailwrapper(8) and the mailer.conf(5) manpages, which are very clear.

Eh. I can understand that there is a benefit of modularity with packages, but I also like the "seperation of power" I have by not having the base system in packages. I can royally screw up my package system as much as I desire, all it takes is an rm -rf /usr/pkg /usr/pkgsrc and I can start again clean. Upgrading base sets and kernel is as simple as untarring them.

 

[Nothinman]

I always assumed the same, however I thought n0c had a soft spot for solaris or something

Well I've been working with Solaris recently, making internal packages for work, and there's so many little annoyances compared to Linux it's frustrating. Mostly just the fact that vi isn't vim, ksh isn't bash, etc =)

Eh. I can understand that there is a benefit of modularity with packages, but I also like the "seperation of power" I have by not having the base system in packages. I can royally screw up my package system as much as I desire, all it takes is an rm -rf /usr/pkg /usr/pkgsrc and I can start again clean. Upgrading base sets and kernel is as simple as untarring them.

It's not much more work to fix a base Debian system, and those base packages do a lot of behind the scenes work I'm happy to leave to them.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
No software is absolutely FREE.
The closest you can get, is a BSD.

If there is no "absolutely Free" OS, then Debian come damn close to it.

I would rank it near the top (if not *the* top) of the linunx distributions, but I could not, in good conscience, put it in the top 3 OSes.

Now wait a minute, dude. Given that debian is a community effort and has more packages available pre-compiled than any other distro that I've seen, I think that you should atleast have it in the top three.

If not though, would you mind posting that top three list so that I could check them out 😉

Wait! As far as Freedom in OSes goes Debian cannot be in my top 3! Im greedy about my freedom. Top 3 would be: OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD (in no particular order).

Debian would probably be 4th. As far as usability, and how much I like the OS, I would put Debian 2nd. Possibly only because I have not use NetBSD yet 😉

Oh dear, *BSD, *BSD, & another *BSD. 😕

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good. I've dealt with a ton of linux distros, but I've only spent about three minutes in a BSD. And that was in FreeBSD when I had first heard of it, it was actually quite a while before I had begun to appreciate a non-Microsoft OS.

While I can't really experiment with it right now (not enough free time), I would love to investigate a *BSD in a few months or so. I'm really dying to know what is it that makes a *BSD better than mandrake, debian, red hat, etc. (Besides the fact that nethack-falcon's eye is available in an easily compilable package. After dealing with mandrake's buggy compile that is in itself a very convincing arguement 🙂)

 

[Nothinman]

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good.

In this case, freedom. The license they're under is 'more free' than the GPL which Linux is under.

 

[civad]

I had a feeling that this thread would turn out the way it turned out to be.. isnt it time for a *BSD vs GNU/Linux thread?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
No software is absolutely FREE.
The closest you can get, is a BSD.

If there is no "absolutely Free" OS, then Debian come damn close to it.

I would rank it near the top (if not *the* top) of the linunx distributions, but I could not, in good conscience, put it in the top 3 OSes.

Now wait a minute, dude. Given that debian is a community effort and has more packages available pre-compiled than any other distro that I've seen, I think that you should atleast have it in the top three.

If not though, would you mind posting that top three list so that I could check them out 😉

Wait! As far as Freedom in OSes goes Debian cannot be in my top 3! Im greedy about my freedom. Top 3 would be: OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD (in no particular order).

Debian would probably be 4th. As far as usability, and how much I like the OS, I would put Debian 2nd. Possibly only because I have not use NetBSD yet 😉

Oh dear, *BSD, *BSD, & another *BSD. 😕

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good. I've dealt with a ton of linux distros, but I've only spent about three minutes in a BSD. And that was in FreeBSD when I had first heard of it, it was actually quite a while before I had begun to appreciate a non-Microsoft OS.

While I can't really experiment with it right now (not enough free time), I would love to investigate a *BSD in a few months or so. I'm really dying to know what is it that makes a *BSD better than mandrake, debian, red hat, etc. (Besides the fact that nethack-falcon's eye is available in an easily compilable package. After dealing with mandrake's buggy compile that is in itself a very convincing arguement 🙂)

It's just personal preference. Lots of people prefer linux to bsd, lots of people (fewer though, obviously) prefer bsd to linux. However the biggest mistake you can do is to not give them all a chance.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

It's not much more work to fix a base Debian system, and those base packages do a lot of behind the scenes work I'm happy to leave to them.

That is what I don't like - "behind the scenes" stuff. I'm all for having an OS that is convenient to use, but I think convenience can coexist with simplicity and openness. Not that debian is not open, but complexity is definitely a barrier to knowing how stuff works and being able to manipulate it.

 

[Nothinman]

That is what I don't like - "behind the scenes" stuff. I'm all for having an OS that is convenient to use, but I think convenience can coexist with simplicity and openness. Not that debian is not open, but complexity is definitely a barrier to knowing how stuff works and being able to manipulate it.

There are very few things that I care about enough to know inside and out, most of the time I just want it to work and the Debian packages do just that. They ask me a few questions about the setup of the package, then it just works and it keeps working through all the upgrades I throw at it. I get to choose what to pick about, I'm not forced to read 10 pages of docs for everything I want installed, because what's going to happen if I am forced to do that is I'm going to read all that, figure it out, set it up, let it run for 4 months and forget it all. Then when I have to upgrade or whatever I'm starting over again.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good.

In this case, freedom. The license they're under is 'more free' than the GPL which Linux is under.

🙂
OK, thanks nothinman.

I think that I'll check this "more free" stuff out. The wierd thing is that I had always mentally pictured the *BSDs as "less free" than linux 😕. That just shows what happens when one jumps to conclusions.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
It's just personal preference. Lots of people prefer linux to bsd, lots of people (fewer though, obviously) prefer bsd to linux. However the biggest mistake you can do is to not give them all a chance.

Indeed, and for this reason I'll definitely be investigating the bsds as soon as I can get some time to spare (along with the latest version of debian). Looking back on it, the only reason I strayed away from debian was lack of time :disgust: I hate it when I don't have any time to devote to what I want to do.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good.

In this case, freedom. The license they're under is 'more free' than the GPL which Linux is under.

🙂
OK, thanks nothinman.

I think that I'll check this "more free" stuff out. The wierd thing is that I had always mentally pictured the *BSDs as "less free" than linux 😕. That just shows what happens when one jumps to conclusions.

I think the fact that the bsd's are more commercial-friendly is what makes them seem that way. For example, osx is built on alot of bsd code, but they couldn't have done that with linux (at least not in the manner that they went about it). I think that's what makes it seem less free, is the fact that people can create things with it that *are* less free. However the original code is still there, and while people may not contribute things back to bsd, they certainly aren't "stealing" it (unless they don't follow the few guidelines in the bsd license).

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good.

In this case, freedom. The license they're under is 'more free' than the GPL which Linux is under.

🙂
OK, thanks nothinman.

I think that I'll check this "more free" stuff out. The wierd thing is that I had always mentally pictured the *BSDs as "less free" than linux 😕. That just shows what happens when one jumps to conclusions.

I think the fact that the bsd's are more commercial-friendly is what makes them seem that way. For example, osx is built on alot of bsd code, but they couldn't have done that with linux (at least not in the manner that they went about it). I think that's what makes it seem less free, is the fact that people can create things with it that *are* less free. However the original code is still there, and while people may not contribute things back to bsd, they certainly aren't "stealing" it (unless they don't follow the few guidelines in the bsd license).

I just read the bsd license, and frankly I have to agree with you. (I imagine that there are far fewer BSD "zealots" out there than there are diehard "free as in beer" richard stallman copy-kats.

However, after a quick visit to each of the BSD websites I must say that I couldn't really see much of a difference between them 😕 (i.e. not like red hat, mandrake, debian, etc.). Am I missing something here or is that just the way that they are?

For nostalgia's sake I'm seriously tempted to try out freebsd in the near future, bs there really any big difference between freebsd and netbsd?

Regardless of which, the geek within me can't help but notice that netbsd is able to run on my old aero 1550 pocket pc.........

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

However, after a quick visit to each of the BSD websites I must say that I couldn't really see much of a difference between them 😕 (i.e. not like red hat, mandrake, debian, etc.). Am I missing something here or is that just the way that they are?

What does the website have to do with the actual OS and its usage?

For nostalgia's sake I'm seriously tempted to try out freebsd in the near future, bs there really any big difference between freebsd and netbsd?

A huge difference IMO. FreeBSD is probably a bit more friendly to the new to unix or new to bsd crowd, but either way it's definitely no redhat. I just found FreeBSD kind of complex and messy. I however did not use it for all that long, so I can't give all that great of an opinion on it. NetBSD is very clean and simple, that's why I like it.

Regardless of which, the geek within me can't help but notice that netbsd is able to run on my old aero 1550 pocket pc.........

Yeah it's pretty impressive all of the platforms it runs on, that is one thing that helps keep it from getting too bloaty and out of hand - it has to run on lots of different architectures and platforms.

 

[Spyro]

However, after a quick visit to each of the BSD websites I must say that I couldn't really see much of a difference between them 😕 (i.e. not like red hat, mandrake, debian, etc.). Am I missing something here or is that just the way that they are?

What does the website have to do with the actual OS and its usage?

😱, errr nothing I guess.

For nostalgia's sake I'm seriously tempted to try out freebsd in the near future, bs there really any big difference between freebsd and netbsd?

A huge difference IMO. FreeBSD is probably a bit more friendly to the new to unix or new to bsd crowd, but either way it's definitely no redhat. I just found FreeBSD kind of complex and messy. I however did not use it for all that long, so I can't give all that great of an opinion on it. NetBSD is very clean and simple, that's why I like it.

Ahhh, in that case I'll definitely be checking out netbsd in the near future. Provided that I am still alive after next weeks chemistry exam, this would make a great spring break project for me to sharpen my teeth on.

Regardless of which, the geek within me can't help but notice that netbsd is able to run on my old aero 1550 pocket pc.........

Yeah it's pretty impressive all of the platforms it runs on, that is one thing that helps keep it from getting too bloaty and out of hand - it has to run on lots of different architectures and platforms.

Cool, the only problem I might have is the fact that I gave my handheld away to my younger brother about 3 months ago 🙁, but hopefully he'll let me play around with it for a little while. Either way I still have my Pc to install it on.

Thanks for the info B.B.W.F., I can't wait to get started. It feels good to experiment with something new. 😀

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Debian above solaris eh?

For usability, most definatly.

I always assumed the same, however I thought n0c had a soft spot for solaris or something 😛

Yeah, my wallet. Its what I get paid to support right now. Id trade all half a million dollars of it for a couple good BSD boxes though 😉

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I always assumed the same, however I thought n0c had a soft spot for solaris or something

Well I've been working with Solaris recently, making internal packages for work, and there's so many little annoyances compared to Linux it's frustrating. Mostly just the fact that vi isn't vim, ksh isn't bash, etc =)

Those are a couple of the reasons I actually enjoy using Solaris. Although, I admit it is the only system I use bash on. I cant work without tab completion...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Oh dear, *BSD, *BSD, & another *BSD. 😕

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good. I've dealt with a ton of linux distros, but I've only spent about three minutes in a BSD. And that was in FreeBSD when I had first heard of it, it was actually quite a while before I had begun to appreciate a non-Microsoft OS.

While I can't really experiment with it right now (not enough free time), I would love to investigate a *BSD in a few months or so. I'm really dying to know what is it that makes a *BSD better than mandrake, debian, red hat, etc. (Besides the fact that nethack-falcon's eye is available in an easily compilable package. After dealing with mandrake's buggy compile that is in itself a very convincing arguement 🙂)

Because I understand it better than I do Linux. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, most of them falling into the opinion category.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good.

In this case, freedom. The license they're under is 'more free' than the GPL which Linux is under.

:Q

If it wasnt for the quotes, Id think someone replaced you with a clone... A better, BSD loving clone of course 😉

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

That is what I don't like - "behind the scenes" stuff. I'm all for having an OS that is convenient to use, but I think convenience can coexist with simplicity and openness. Not that debian is not open, but complexity is definitely a barrier to knowing how stuff works and being able to manipulate it.

There are very few things that I care about enough to know inside and out, most of the time I just want it to work and the Debian packages do just that. They ask me a few questions about the setup of the package, then it just works and it keeps working through all the upgrades I throw at it. I get to choose what to pick about, I'm not forced to read 10 pages of docs for everything I want installed, because what's going to happen if I am forced to do that is I'm going to read all that, figure it out, set it up, let it run for 4 months and forget it all. Then when I have to upgrade or whatever I'm starting over again.

And here is a problem with Linux. No, its a problem with the open source community as a whole (free software included). Documentation. Take the 30 minutes it takes to write a basic doc on your installation and setup, and you have a quick, easy, written by you instruction set on how to do it again.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I know curiousity kills quite a few wild animals, but could somebody please tell me what makes the *BSDs so good.

In this case, freedom. The license they're under is 'more free' than the GPL which Linux is under.

🙂
OK, thanks nothinman.

I think that I'll check this "more free" stuff out. The wierd thing is that I had always mentally pictured the *BSDs as "less free" than linux 😕. That just shows what happens when one jumps to conclusions.

I think the fact that the bsd's are more commercial-friendly is what makes them seem that way. For example, osx is built on alot of bsd code, but they couldn't have done that with linux (at least not in the manner that they went about it). I think that's what makes it seem less free, is the fact that people can create things with it that *are* less free. However the original code is still there, and while people may not contribute things back to bsd, they certainly aren't "stealing" it (unless they don't follow the few guidelines in the bsd license).

I just read the bsd license, and frankly I have to agree with you. (I imagine that there are far fewer BSD "zealots" out there than there are diehard "free as in beer" richard stallman copy-kats.

However, after a quick visit to each of the BSD websites I must say that I couldn't really see much of a difference between them 😕 (i.e. not like red hat, mandrake, debian, etc.). Am I missing something here or is that just the way that they are?

For nostalgia's sake I'm seriously tempted to try out freebsd in the near future, bs there really any big difference between freebsd and netbsd?

Regardless of which, the geek within me can't help but notice that netbsd is able to run on my old aero 1550 pocket pc.........

The differences between Debian and Mandrake are less than the differences between FreeBSD and NetBSD. FreeBSD and NetBSD are different OSes, not just different packagings of the same OS.

 

[Nothinman]

If it wasnt for the quotes, Id think someone replaced you with a clone... A better, BSD loving clone of course

I know how the licenses work, it doesn't mean I prefer the BSD one just because I know it has less restrictions =)

And here is a problem with Linux. No, its a problem with the open source community as a whole (free software included). Documentation. Take the 30 minutes it takes to write a basic doc on your installation and setup, and you have a quick, easy, written by you instruction set on how to do it again.

I know, I really should document things. I don't even do it well at work.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If it wasnt for the quotes, Id think someone replaced you with a clone... A better, BSD loving clone of course

I know how the licenses work, it doesn't mean I prefer the BSD one just because I know it has less restrictions =)

And here is a problem with Linux. No, its a problem with the open source community as a whole (free software included). Documentation. Take the 30 minutes it takes to write a basic doc on your installation and setup, and you have a quick, easy, written by you instruction set on how to do it again.

I know, I really should document things. I don't even do it well at work.

Actually I usually don't even bother reading the docs. And if I do the only thing that I pay attention to is the commands.

To me the best way to learn is by experimentation (provided one has a nice sandbox partition available).

 

[Nothinman]

Actually I usually don't even bother reading the docs. And if I do the only thing that I pay attention to is the commands.

Try setting up the Cyrus imap server without reading the docs.