- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
I am talking to some people I know and they think Red hat is the Linux distribution of choice. I think its Ubuntu. So, if you had to choose a Linux distribution today, which would it be?
What Linux distribution would you install right now?
- Thread starter IHateMyJob2004
- Start date
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
For server, CentOS. (why pay for Red Hat when yo can get CentOS or any other distro for free?) For Workstation, Ubuntu.
As a 2nd choice, Fedora Core, for either server or workstation.
As a 2nd choice, Fedora Core, for either server or workstation.
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
It depends. On my laptop I have Ubuntu, but in the datacenter I admin, I have about 20 RedHat servers and 1 Ubuntu server. I wouldn't say any one is "better" than the other. They (most) all have advantages.
IMO Puppy Linux should be on the main list.
I recently chose Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha 6 as my main OS. I have probably tried 20 different Linux distros, and Ubuntu is still the best in many ways.
I use Ubuntu as my main system, and I have Puppy Linux on my USB drive as a backup or for when I'm travelling.
Mandriva and Fedora are both nice systems as well in their own right. I just don't see a reason to use them over Ubuntu. Mandriva used to be faster and have better bootup times, but not any more. Fedora is known to be cutting-edge, but Ubuntu 9.04 is a game-changer.
I recently chose Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha 6 as my main OS. I have probably tried 20 different Linux distros, and Ubuntu is still the best in many ways.
I use Ubuntu as my main system, and I have Puppy Linux on my USB drive as a backup or for when I'm travelling.
Mandriva and Fedora are both nice systems as well in their own right. I just don't see a reason to use them over Ubuntu. Mandriva used to be faster and have better bootup times, but not any more. Fedora is known to be cutting-edge, but Ubuntu 9.04 is a game-changer.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Strongly agree. Ubuntu will win for ease of use, though. SUSE is not as easy to configure but once you get it right it's amazing.
Id go with Debian or CentOS on a server, and Ubuntu on a laptop, and Debian or Ubuntu on a desktop.
I just build a phenom 2 box, and put CentOS on it, because I want to set it up to host VMs so I want to get a little more familiar with it and see if I want to learn enough to go for the RHCE or something.
Since I prefer KDE to Gnome I'd install Kubuntu over Ubuntu. Kubuntu being Ubuntu with the KDE desktop in place of Gnome.
Also I'd install Sabayon over Gentoo because Sabayon is easier it work with IMHO. Sabayon is Gentoo based BTW.
Finally I'm huge Puppy Linux fan. Puppy is small so it is easy to download. On any halfway modern machine Puppy will load completely to RAM which makes Puppy super fast. Puppy has a package manager so adding applications/features is easy. Puppy is amazingly complete for such a tiny distro.
Anyhow I run Sabayon and Puppy on my machines but I put Kubuntu on a friend's because Kubuntu worked better out of the box with his hardware. My advice is to DL several distros (since they are completely free) and see which ones work best with your hardware and which ones you like best. It don't matter what the rest of us think, it matters what you think...
Also I'd install Sabayon over Gentoo because Sabayon is easier it work with IMHO. Sabayon is Gentoo based BTW.
Finally I'm huge Puppy Linux fan. Puppy is small so it is easy to download. On any halfway modern machine Puppy will load completely to RAM which makes Puppy super fast. Puppy has a package manager so adding applications/features is easy. Puppy is amazingly complete for such a tiny distro.
Anyhow I run Sabayon and Puppy on my machines but I put Kubuntu on a friend's because Kubuntu worked better out of the box with his hardware. My advice is to DL several distros (since they are completely free) and see which ones work best with your hardware and which ones you like best. It don't matter what the rest of us think, it matters what you think...
I used Ubuntu at one time, but I found it harder to use (ironically) than Arch, which is my current distro. I think when I just started Linux, I went to Ubuntu because it was the "noobs distro" - however, once I really got into it I discovered I had no idea what I was doing, and I had no idea what was going on with my computer. When I switched to Arch, I actually learned what was going on with my computer - I wasn't helplessly asking for help on the forums for every little problem, copy/pasting commands sourced from people who actually knew Linux.
The short of it is that Ubuntu is not good for learning Linux. Its "user-friendliness" just hides away the actual OS under a layer of gloss; to actually learn Linux, I'd strongly recommend a distro that, at the very least, does not come with X installed. This way, you first learn to use the command line (essential for Linux, no matter what distro you use) and are familiar with doing things manually in case you need to debug on your own someday.
I like Arch because it's simple, with a simple config (most every setting is stored in a single file, rc.conf) and its excellent package manager and community. The wiki makes setup just as easy as Ubuntu or other graphical distros, but uses a keyboard instead. Once you get it set up, you get a lot more control over what you can do with your system. The base Arch install is just the kernel and some basic tools - everything else from X and up is 100% configurable by the user.
The short of it is that Ubuntu is not good for learning Linux. Its "user-friendliness" just hides away the actual OS under a layer of gloss; to actually learn Linux, I'd strongly recommend a distro that, at the very least, does not come with X installed. This way, you first learn to use the command line (essential for Linux, no matter what distro you use) and are familiar with doing things manually in case you need to debug on your own someday.
I like Arch because it's simple, with a simple config (most every setting is stored in a single file, rc.conf) and its excellent package manager and community. The wiki makes setup just as easy as Ubuntu or other graphical distros, but uses a keyboard instead. Once you get it set up, you get a lot more control over what you can do with your system. The base Arch install is just the kernel and some basic tools - everything else from X and up is 100% configurable by the user.
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 60,066
- 10,553
- 126
Definitely Ubuntu. Aside from it being my favorite distro, I think it has the best chance of really going somewhere for general consumer appeal. Ubuntu could be the 1 Linux that that 3rd parties develop for, and the apps can then be ported to other distros. Imo, Ubuntu's the closest thing to a "standard" that desktop Linux has ever had.
Why would you do that? If you prefer Gnome then DL Ubuntu and you are done. If you prefer KDE DL Kubuntu and you are done. Why make it a complicated multi step process?
The correct answer is that it depends on your hardware...
I know Ubuntu is popular and very well supported but on my hardware Ubuntu runs pitifully slow. Gentoo and Sabayon are much faster.
A small light distro like Puppy, DSL, anti X, or tiny ME is the only way to go on an older slower system.
Head to http://distrowatch.com/ pick a few distros and try em out for yourself.
Certainly you should check out Ubuntu just to see what the fuss is about. Then pick another distro or two and compare. If you do this please come back and let us know what you think.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter