Favorite Linux Distros?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: civad
Originally posted by: Nothinman

Debian.

I used to detest such statements/ answers by Debian users in the Debian forums/ newsgroups. I used to feel that if someone needs to know why a thing X is good or bad, maybe someone should spend some time to explain why. But after spending a few months toying around with Debian, I believe that the time has come for me to get detested. And here's why:

a. Someone said about Slackware that it is as friendly as a coiled rattlesnake. I will go a step further and say that Debian can be as friendly (to you) as your pitbull or as hostile as your neighbor's... in other words, you should know how to 'control' it or be ready to get bloodied/ intimidated/ feel uncomfortable with (whatever the case may be)
b. I agree with the positive things about Debian posted by wizardLRU. In addition, I must also add that Debian has excellent documentation for *almost all* of its packages. In general, very few people actually bother to read the manuals/ help files; etc; but more often than not, in many distros, I have felt frustrated when I type
>man xyz
and I get the response:
no manual entry for xyz.
c. A regular follower of GNU/Linux distros might notice (and realize as to why:)) that many of the distros are based on Redhat or are RPM-based. But in general, the distros being talked about most (Knoppix, Xandros, and..whether you like it or not..LindowsOS). Esp. with reference to Xandros and LindowsOS, why would the commercial distros choose Debian over other distros? Ease of use, reliability and configurability are a few characteristics that come to my mind.

What I observed/ expreienced/ realized about Debian was through personal experience, discussion with other Debian users and also a lot of READING OF MANUALS.

<deviation from topic>
I honestly believe that one *must* have his/her own experiences with Debian before they ask others something like:

"Should I try this?" "What will happen if I do so-and-so?" "I am having trouble with so-and-so." without actually TRYING it.

I would appreciate if people said things like "I had problem X and I read/someone told me to do so-and-so; but it didnt work" -->provide references if possible.

It might be because I am semi-Debianized at this stage....
</deviation from topic>

I thought Debian was the only distro concieted enough to call itseldf GNU/Linux.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
I thought Debian was the only distro concieted enough to call itseldf GNU/Linux.

But in this case it sort of serves a purpose, because they have Debian GNU/NetBSD, Debian GNU/FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd in the works. What will be truly scarey is when we see "Debian BSD/Linux" released =) Although Debian GNU/OpenBSD would be really cool, having OpenBSD's pf and altq (well I don't know how well the altq works yet, I may retract this later) with a decent package manager would rock =)
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
I thought Debian was the only distro concieted enough to call itseldf GNU/Linux.

But in this case it sort of serves a purpose, because they have Debian GNU/NetBSD, Debian GNU/FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd in the works. What will be truly scarey is when we see "Debian BSD/Linux" released =)

I would cry. I really would.

I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
I would cry. I really would.

So would I, the BSD userland utils are really lacking compared to the GNU ones.

I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!

Take it up with their political mailing list, I'd love to see the answer you get =)
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
I would cry. I really would.

So would I, the BSD userland utils are really lacking compared to the GNU ones.

I agree with this, in some ways.

I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!

Take it up with their political mailing list, I'd love to see the answer you get =)

It might be interresting. Demand that all of the BSD licensed code be removed from the GPL licensed software because it violates the GPL :p
 

civad

Golden Member
May 30, 2001
1,397
0
0
Well.. a few other distros *make an attmept* to call themselves GNU/Linux (but thats done in ..um..fine print-like manner)

Some distros other than Debian to be concieted enough to call themselves GNU/Linux:
Sourcemage
Nasgaia
Linuxin
Openwall
Blackrhino


Its a little surprise that more than half of the distributions mentioned above are Debian-based
(A quick searchat distrowatch and lwn got me these names).


 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: civad
Well.. a few other distros *make an attmept* to call themselves GNU/Linux (but thats done in ..um..fine print-like manner)

Some distros other than Debian to be concieted enough to call themselves GNU/Linux:
Sourcemage
Nasgaia
Linuxin
Openwall
Blackrhino


Its a little surprise that more than half of these are Debian-based
(A quick searchat distrowatch and lwn got me these names).

Hmmm... I will be more specific next time. The only worthwhile (aka major) distro concieted enough to call itself GNU/Linux (while ignoring the other sources it has gathered from over the years) is Debian. The only one of those I had heard of is OpenWall, and I think people generally just use their patches.
 

Bremen

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
658
0
0
I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!
In the GNU faq on this they say that doing such quickly becomes cumbersome, therefore they believe the list should be just the major contributors, ie GNU/Linux. Of course if you want the major contributors in any modern distro we'd just be calling them Red Hat Gnome and Mandrake KDE... really, does the kernel really matter to end users? or the development tools used?
 

civad

Golden Member
May 30, 2001
1,397
0
0
Originally posted by:n0cmonkey
Hmmm... I will be more specific next time

I kind of assumed you were referring to the uhm..mainstream distros. But curiosity got the better of me and I HAD to do this search.. :)
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Bremen
I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!
In the GNU faq on this they say that doing such quickly becomes cumbersome, therefore they believe the list should be just the major contributors, ie GNU/Linux. Of course if you want the major contributors in any modern distro we'd just be calling them Red Hat Gnome and Mandrake KDE... really, does the kernel really matter to end users? or the development tools used?

I think I limited myself to the major contributors. On my Linux box at work it would be: GNU/Blackbox/KDE/Gnome/BSD/XFree86(X11/whatever)/Linux atleast!
 

civad

Golden Member
May 30, 2001
1,397
0
0
Originally posted by:Bremen
In the GNU faq on this they say that doing such quickly becomes cumbersome, therefore they believe the list should be just the major contributors, ie GNU/Linux. Of course if you want the major contributors in any modern distro we'd just be calling them Red Hat Gnome and Mandrake KDE... really, does the kernel really matter to end users? or the development tools used?

Well..as far as kernel is concerned, I dont think a majority of desktop users (esp. newbies) would care too much while installing. It's only after installing will they start asking questions like "Why can't I access my Windows XP partition?" or "Why doesnt my sound card xxx work?" Of course, they didnt bother to read what are the features of the kernel they have
One might say something similar about the development tools.

There are, of course, quite a few people who like to have the latest and greatest of all packages. And others who like to have every package installed on their system without knowing what they mean/do.

 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
really, does the kernel really matter to end users? or the development tools used?

Of course, indirectly. The kernel determines what hardware is supported among other things, like Linux with the O(1) scheduler, low latency patches, preemptable kernel (i.e. most of the stuff in stock 2.5 now heh) will have latency good enough for real time A/V editing, right now with stock 2.4 it's iffy. And the development tools matter because the more popular they are, the more likely the software using them will be installed with little or no hassle.