85 replies to this topic

[AxeZ]

If you like UNIX use Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, IRIX or try Plan9, BSD, MINIX and OSX. I find it odd when people say they use Slackware because it’s very UNIX like.

Well, I have Solaris on my Sun Ultra box and I was multibooting for some time with FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
Still I find Linux most satisfactory solution for my desktop needs.

[qwertyman66]

Debian (and derivatives) for one reason: apt-get! It definitely makes a better impression than anything else I have tried (not much I will admit). Ubuntu is ok for most users who don't want to learn, but if you want to learn Debian all the way!

[Octal]

Debian (and derivatives) for one reason: apt-get! It definitely makes a better impression than anything else I have tried (not much I will admit). Ubuntu is ok for most users who don't want to learn, but if you want to learn Debian all the way!

But apt-get is more, let me do this for you, then compiling by sources. Though compiling by sources can be just be as easy. Just have to type a little more.

[Aghaster]

I installed Ubuntu for my little brother on his computer yesterday. Gosh it did improve A LOT since I've installed it the first time. The first version of Ubuntu I installed was 5.4, at the time the installer was pretty much like the debian installer. I installed 6.10 for my little brother, and it was like just as easy as booting from CD, waiting for it to load, clicking the installer icon, answering a couple of questions and voila. I automatically detected Windows and added to grub. It even proposed to resize the ntfs partition and take the freed space to install itself!

I think we've reached a point where Linux can be very noob friendly. I'm surprised. I may have passed too much time away from "noob distros".

In my case, if slackware didn't have this lack of available packages, I'd say it rocks.

[Octal]

I installed Ubuntu for my little brother on his computer yesterday. Gosh it did improve A LOT since I've installed it the first time. The first version of Ubuntu I installed was 5.4, at the time the installer was pretty much like the debian installer. I installed 6.10 for my little brother, and it was like just as easy as booting from CD, waiting for it to load, clicking the installer icon, answering a couple of questions and voila. I automatically detected Windows and added to grub. It even proposed to resize the ntfs partition and take the freed space to install itself!

I think we've reached a point where Linux can be very noob friendly. I'm surprised. I may have passed too much time away from "noob distros".

In my case, if slackware didn't have this lack of available packages, I'd say it rocks.

"Once they make someting idiot proof, they make a better idiot."

Funny, the installer has crased before on me. The cd was fine, it worked the next few tries.

[bsd-roo]

hi

er, how about the bsd variants? im a freebsd user at the moment, but as soon as i am competent enough i am moving onto open-bsd. i really think that freebsd is something different. i have used slackware, fedora core, SuSe, live distros. and i think freebsd is hard to migrate to, but after installing it onto my computer i found my learning and understanding of unix operating systems rocketed. before linux would sort everything out for my, install the gui, auto mount everything and install all the packages that come with it.
but as soon as i migrated to freebsd i learned to because i had to, mount everything manually in a command console, write my own xorg.conf, add packages manually. now if the system didnt do what it is supposed to do, then i can do it manually and find out if its the xserver or system not doing it properly and i can do it myself.

maybe im jus talking alot of gibberish cos im still abit tired when im writing this.
and also i saw nobody really mention the bsd variants so i thought id give bsd a mention cos i think it does deserve a mention atleast.

anyone agree?

[Octal]

The reason I didn't put bsd on the list is becuase it wasn't in teh top 10 in distro watch. It was 11th.

I might actually look into bsd, it heard it is fast, stable, and secure. Do you agree?

[bsd-roo]

oh i see,
im surprised that bsd only came in 11th. i am a freebsd fan after experimenting with other linux distros.
i would really highly recommend free-bsd and eventually once you have fallen in love with its kernel and the way the operating system works, and are looking for the most secure OS on the planet, you will then be ready to explore the world of openbsd.

survey says:
most of the worlds apache servers are hosted on freebsd, top 50 longest server uptime is shared by majority of freebsd servers and believe it or not Microsoft servers. linux servers are no-where on the list.

http://uptime.netcra...ay/top.avg.html

no disrespect to linux server hosts. but to beat the freebsd record of rebooting once in 15 years is pretty hard to beat.

i personally love the ports system and find it much more easier to keep then pkg managers. comes with linux binary emulation, so that linux pkgs can also be ran on your freebsd box.

there arent many bsd variants out there and the community is closely knitted together.
when people tell me that they are running a linux distro, i often have to ask "which one?"
but you know that if someone is running bsd you would think straight away... freebsd or openbsd or netbsd.
MAC-OSX runs the bsd kernel but im not sure wether to count it as a bsd variant.

i used to think wouldnt it be great if all the linux or unix users unite and create one extremely good operating system (open source obviously) using the experience from everysingle variant out there, an os created for portability suitable for programmers, gamers, h*ackers, web designers, servers and general word processing. ofcourse this would only be a dream...



sorry... im day dreaming and babbling on.

to be honest with you i can spend a whole day telling you how secure it is, i know my friend's freebsd server
has wheel disable, which means that no-one can "su" even if they are inside the system. and the fact that ports are opened manually, they would have to be physically sitting infront of the machine and try and social engineer me for the root passwd.(basiclly it takes a porn star to spread her legs infront of me to hack my computer... instead of a uber leet hacker)

if somebody thinks im talking trash please feel free to correct me.

[Octal]

I just read distro watch about bsd, and your post, it sounds just like slackware. It sounds nice, but it said something about combatability with new hardware. My wireless card only works with 2.6 kernels of linux, which I am not so sure how new, but I am pretty sure it is pretty new.

Once I find out how much making a server costs (I read an article in Linux Journal about setting up a server out of your own box, so I bought the copy.), I might use bsd as a server, but if the wireless card thing comes up, Then what should I use, I am assuming I should go with slackware.

About that ultimate os, I have thought about that before. Would be sweet.

[bsd-roo]

depends what kind of server you are wanting. erm... are you talking about building a machine and then finding the right OS for the server? right and believe it or not... i build a new PC with SATA disks. all the linux with a slightly older kernel failed to recognise my hard drives. but freebsd recognised it straight away. i was disapointed at slackware cos slackware is my favourite choice of linux before, until moved onto freebsd. so yeah i guess they are similar and attract me more than any other distros.
im pretty sure that most hardware work well under the freebsd kernel.
i would say that if the wireless card works well in linux it should work well in freebsd. il go and find a compatibility list for wireless cards. i think prism should be fine.
and if your looking to set up a server in freebsd. the ports collection already have apache1.3 - 2.2
ssh logins configurable, has its own ftp server softwares, apache would do fine for webservers. and im sure anything else you want... it will be in there. like i said before disabling ssh-logins administering and disabling wheel users can mean that it cannot be controled practicaly remotely, unless your sever really got "OWNED".

but i will tell you that when you first switch from linux to freebsd you might wanna take some time and get used to the freebsd style. hardware labelling is different which can put some people off. and the way that the system is laid out is very very different to linux. it uses slices and slices contains partitions but im sure u'll get it in no time. all the important directories are seperated and stored in different slices so that it minimalizes damage if you accidently corrupt a folder or slice.
slackware servers are also good, they all make good servers.
but i think recently slackware has changed radically... which i dont like. the old slackware took less memory to run without all the graphical stuff and was more of a server and work OS i think in my opinion but now it has became more of a everyday OS. maybe its still as good as it used to be, but that change kinda put me off.
when i first used slackware, friends used to think thats hardcore, pure command console work and that it had the most professional feel, but now its changed.
freebsd showed me a new different world, slackware will always be my all time favourite linux OS....


wish there is THE ULTIMATE OS..
so that we dont have to choose and can gain the benefits of all the different variants of unix and linuxes

keep me informed on your server quest.

[Blooregard]

I'm pretty fond of Debian based distros. I started on Redhad 7 I think it was. I've played with Slack a bit here and there, but I think the Deb based are the best. In the end it's all dependent on what you plan on doing with it. I had LFS on my servers for the longest time. It ran fast as hell, they used to go from BIOS to Bash in about 6 seconds.

[theurgy]

I guess I'm quite impartial cause I happen to work for Xandros, but there's a big difference between Debian and Xandros as stated above. You forget that Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian as well...
Either way, Xandros is I think a nice well rounded general use distro. If you want a distro to just work without thinking too hard.. it's not bad!
Aside from that I'm a longtime fan of Slackware and Ubuntu.

[Soho]

I have been using slackware as of late. Why do you have only "nix" distros? In my oppinion BSD isn't all that bad.

Soho

[Octal]

The reason I didn't put bsd on the list is becuase it wasn't in teh top 10 in distro watch. It was 11th.

I have been using slackware as of late. Why do you have only "nix" distros? In my oppinion BSD isn't all that bad.

Soho

Hmm...

[Tricore]

I really don't know what to vote for, they all have their pros and cons I guess. I'm currently setting up Gentoo on my desktop, and I think it's rather cool, although it takes forever to do shit and my computer is pretty good (A64 3700+, 2GB PC3200 RAM).

I guess Ubuntu is pretty noob friendly (currently got it + WinXP on my laptop), but even though I still think of myself as a Linux noob, I much prefer doing a really minimalistic install, where I have a CHOICE so that "If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me...". I don't think any Linux distro is that difficult if you have a reasonable knowledge about computers and good documentation, or maybe I'm just more comfortable with Linux than I think I am.

I haven't really tried out Slackware or Debian. How are they compared to Gentoo? I always figured Slackware to be a distro for tinkering with the kernel and stuff with only a minimal install and nothing that you do't need, but it seems to include quite the bit of software (6 CD's or one DVD - that's just as big as Fedora Core 6). Because I have to admit that Gentoo really IS slow when installing applications, it's like 1½ hour since I started "emerge gdm" and it hasn't finished yet I mean it may have a lot of dependencies but still...

[Octal]

I really don't know what to vote for, they all have their pros and cons I guess. I'm currently setting up Gentoo on my desktop, and I think it's rather cool, although it takes forever to do shit and my computer is pretty good (A64 3700+, 2GB PC3200 RAM).

I guess Ubuntu is pretty noob friendly (currently got it + WinXP on my laptop), but even though I still think of myself as a Linux noob, I much prefer doing a really minimalistic install, where I have a CHOICE so that "If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me...". I don't think any Linux distro is that difficult if you have a reasonable knowledge about computers and good documentation, or maybe I'm just more comfortable with Linux than I think I am.

I haven't really tried out Slackware or Debian. How are they compared to Gentoo? I always figured Slackware to be a distro for tinkering with the kernel and stuff with only a minimal install and nothing that you do't need, but it seems to include quite the bit of software (6 CD's or one DVD - that's just as big as Fedora Core 6). Because I have to admit that Gentoo really IS slow when installing applications, it's like 1½ hour since I started "emerge gdm" and it hasn't finished yet I mean it may have a lot of dependencies but still...

"If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not becuase it doesn't like me..." Hmm, I wonder where that came from...

Debian. Ubuntu is alot like Debian. But Debian isn't as user freindly.

About the software in Slackware. For 11, I use 2 cds for a full install. The others are extra source for 2.6 kernels, and source for software. Yes, it is alot of cds, but slackware comes with everything you need.

[UNDERTAKER]

ubuntu is a well working OS... i like it alot
slackware is also still one of the best.

[Alk3]

I voted Debian (Etch) because of apt-get, great documentation, and a large user base.

At the momment I am dual booting Xubuntu 6.06.1 with Debian Etch. This is only until I get my new laptop in the mail. Then I dont know what I will run. I am used to computers that have old hardware so I dont even mess with Gentoo or Source Mage- I dont like the compile time. With a brand new setup, who knows what I will be using by the end of this month.

I will always like Debian because I understand it the best. Ubuntu is just a bastard child of Debian that is just a quick fix meant for the impatient and unwilling to learn. I dont care what anyone says.

Alk3

[alienbinary]

I think there are best distros for specific purposes. A couple things to keep in mind when you look at all the distributions:

1. the hardware you're running it on. Some distributions work better on amd, some on intel, others on ppc, and some people do most computing on a pda.

2. some distributions are live, such as knoppix. I think the ability to stick a knoppix cd into the cd tray of any computer and have my own workstation, especially when combined with a usb flash drive to store any files needed with read/write permissions, is a very valuable tool indeed. O'Reilly publishes a book called "Knoppix Hacks" which comes with a slightly retooled knoppix kernel that's designed to be used to repair windows computers. It even includes a tutorial that shows you how to install an anti-virus utility on a temp directory to scan the windows system for infections using a free and updateable antivirus system.

3. some work better as servers than others, some work better as workstations.

4. some distros, like ubuntu are designed to give newbies a hand into immersing themselves in the linux environment. they can be the best tool out there to teach a new user how to navigate a linux box. so level of experience has to be taken into account.

5. I have a personal hard-on for distributions that are designed to run on the most random devices. linux on the iPod, puppylinux, dslinux, and whatever the hell runs on the ipaq are all clever uses of linux techonology.

Where I work, I have access to only the worst machines, a knoppix live or freesbie live cd can make a world of difference, especially if you're concerned that the system you're on isn't a secure one or might have spyware running.

I think an even better poll would be: which mascot is the most leet.

[Alk3]

Debian. Ubuntu is alot like Debian. But Debian isn't as user freindly.

Debian comes with just as many of the same packages as Ubuntu. It just lets you choose /specifically/ which ones to install. There aren't as many dependencies and your system will _definitely_ not take up 2-4 GB of space. I can install Debian in about 30 minutes and only have a disk space usage at about 600-850MB with Xorg, fluxbox, various security tools etc.. I agree Ubuntu is a lot like Debian, THATS BECAUSE UBUNTU IS DERIVED FROM DEBIAN. Debian lets you choose which tools to install. It wont install what you don't need. The Debian installer is an ncurses interface and is /very/ similar to Slackware. So, Octal, if you say you can use Slackware, then how come you can't use Debian? hmmm....

</rant>

Sorry, but talking with authority requires you to know what you are actually saying.

Alk3