Jump to content

- - - - -

What is the best NIX distro?

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#21 tekio


    5(R1P7 |<1DD13

  • Binrev Financier
  • 1,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Blue Nowhere

Posted 17 August 2009 - 12:02 AM

Ubuntu runs 100% great on my eee 900 with a Celeron under-clocked to around 900mhz and 1GB of RAM. Running WinXP on the thing was totally unusable. Mostly, because of SSD write times being at 6MB per second. But +1 for Ubuntu speed.

To me, it is worth it to spend a few dollars on more RAM and have minimal configurations. I was 100% Debian until the HD on my old Thinkpad died and lost over a year of configurations and tweaks for all my hardware. At that time, mulling over all the reconfiguration issues, a guy at work suggested Ubuntu. And it worked out of the box. The only custom drivers needed were for packet injection and other WiFi cards/adapters. Broader hardware support is always going to lead to bloat. but the convenience, especially to people who do not have all the time in the world, is a good trade off sometimes.

Edited by tekio, 17 August 2009 - 12:26 AM.

#22 phasma


    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 17 August 2009 - 09:56 AM

I have the exact same outlook as Tekio. Debian used to be my favorite, but the constant configurations and tweeks that had to be made were just driving me crazy. Then I heard a lot of talk about Ubuntu 8.10 and its sleek GUI and I installed and I've been loving it ever since!

EDIT: Ubuntu is also very WiFi friendly, so I don't have to go through all of the driver trouble!

Edited by phasma, 17 August 2009 - 09:58 AM.

#23 G-Brain


    mad 1337

  • Members
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 17 August 2009 - 02:33 PM

Yes, hardware problems. Always hardware problems. Or more accurately, software problems on Linux. Linux boasts the most drivers in the world, yet most are of obsolete hardware and the drivers for modern hardware are always a step behind. If your stuff works out of the box, it's by chance you have a configuration that works. Next kernel release with new drivers and that might all change. Linux is a never-ending battle of fighting with drivers that rarely work. It's a headache I prefer not to put up with.

How do you explain the fact that my drivers have been working perfectly for as long as I can remember? It's sheer ignorance. Just because you couldn't get your stuff to work doesn't mean it never works for anybody.

What if I just want to listen to some music? Well, first I have to check if pulse audio didn't explode again. Next I have to check my levels. If anything turned up the master level past 50, it distorts horribly. Then I have to start playing it and hope nothing turned the line-in audio up unexpectedly (as tvtime seems to like doing). Because if that happened, all you get is static. This seems to be the story with most realtek audio chipsets, which seem to be the de facto standard for integrated audio these days. Another headache I prefer not to put up with.

When I wanted to listen to music, it worked out of the box. Your personal anecdotes don't prove anything. Do you want to hear a Windows horror story?

So if you want to put up with things like that, have fun. I have better things I could be doing than fighting with my own hardware. I have no such problems on Windows. You just install it and it works.

I install my Unix systems and they work in a way that I very much prefer to that of Windows operating systems.

Drivers always break on Linux. It's a given you'll have to waste your time fscking with them at some point in time. There's also a chance that your hardware will just be broken on Linux, as I've come across several times. An update to a driver just breaks it, and you either have to downgrade it or live without the hardware.

Using language such as "always" and "it's a given" just proves how ignorant you are. My drivers have worked for as long as I can remember and I know a lot of people who haven't had any problems either.

And yes, I can generalize my case. Go to any Linux forum and it's full of people needing help getting their hardware working. And for every person that posts, there's more behind them that are simply reading the posts with the same problem, have given up on the problem, or have solved it themselves. I'd say it's a pretty accurate generalization.

Oh, the irony. Have you ever seen a Windows help forum? :)

And I meant generalization in the sense that you're talking about your problems as if they're the case for everybody. "Everything always breaks", etc.

Windows games don't work on Unix? Scandalous!

If you want to waste your game playing time messing with Wine and hoping it works, again, good luck. If I want to play a game, winecfg is not a very good one. I'd rather play Civ 4 or something.

You missed my point completely. It's ridiculous to expect games for a certain platform to work on another.

I'd like to amend your statement about flash. Flash is a steaming pile of crap on Linux. Flash works fine on Windows. I'm sorry Flash doesn't work on your OS, but it doesn't mean you have to take it out on the rest of us. I enjoy flash video and flash games on Windows. True, flash is not ideal (certainly not for video), but it works fine. On Windows.

I hate Flash on Windows as well. It's technical reasons better left for an other thread.
  • Spyril likes this

#24 G-Brain


    mad 1337

  • Members
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 17 August 2009 - 03:17 PM

This is so backwards it's not even funny.

hacking is almost synomous with hacking Windows; you must become a Windows pro to be a competent hacker. The best way to become competent is to use it on frequent basis.

If you want to become someone who is an expert at Windows systems and programming them and breaking into them, then sure. I would call such a person a Windows hacker. There is more out there than just Windows, and those systems can be hacked just as well. People hacking those systems are hackers as well and they don't have to know anything about Windows. Because Windows is the most widely used operating system I understand that most people will think about it when hacking is mentioned. It's just not the only thing out there. A lot of people enjoy hacking on other systems.

Modern day linux is almost Windows anyway but without the device support.

You mean a lot of popular desktop environments and window managers mimic the appearance of Windows? This is true, but it doesn't say anything about Linux itself. There are plenty of nonstandard and innovative window managers. But even if they looked exactly alike, looks aren't everything.

It makes me sick what Linux has become. If you run Linux primarily from the GUI, I will dare say that you are an undercover Windows lover. Real Linux is command line. The only exception I have for a GUI is the FluxBox that comes with Damn Small Linux and that should be used in limited dosages.

While I agree that using Linux for the sake of not using Windows is not a good idea, people using window managers that mimic Windows functionality probably use it because it's a standard. It works okay. It's good enough for them. It doesn't say anything about their feelings toward Windows.

Personally I'm a big fan of the command line, but it's ridiculous to say that the GUI doesn't have its place.

See this is the double standard that Linux fanantics have...they think somehow that because they run linux they represent the true spirit of hacking or computing. The only people worse are IT people who use Apple laptops.

You are the one who said hacking was almost synonymous with Windows hacking. "true spirit" much? I merely stated that Windows wasn't the only thing around.

as your PRIMARY means to interact with the world of hacking and computing it is less efficient then using Windows.

What makes it less efficient? I'm more efficient on Unix than I am on Windows. I like being able to fit everything to my needs.

the truth is I've rarely found linux to be more benifical, in fact it has been more of a hinderance.

How is that? Is it because every option is hidden behind layers and layers of dialogs? Because you couldn't customize anything? Because it's hard to automate things? Because of the lack of standard command line tools? Because you couldn't look at the source of something?

its just that I can't stand the 'groupie' mentality around Linux especially when everyone is using a GUI that's almost a copy of Windows while the system requirements of flavors are increasing to the point of Windows as well.

Fancy software requires fancy hardware. Meanwhile, many flavors remain light.
  • Spyril likes this

#25 dinscurge


    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 17 August 2009 - 04:41 PM

he was saying that linux is not lightweight anymore if you pick any main distro, redhat, debian, ubuntu, gentoo, slackware, knoppix, mandrake, in most peoples experience it uses about the same amount of ram/cycles as windows e.g. just as slow just as bloated as windows(of course just to be able to run kde-gnome to get the standard apps). it just doesn't run as many different types of hardware. i've never met some one that couldnt get a windows computer running, just as i've never seen any distro/nix work just as good as windows on any computer ive ever used. its less efficient in i dont have to research every single piece of hardware going in my computer to see if it works, if it doesnt work then i have to see if i have to compile a custom krnl32.exe/krnl64.exe to get it to work properly. i dont have to research and try every single up date to make sure it doesn't break a driver/linux on my computer. most people have problems with drivers probably 70-80%+ have had a problem with some hardware using linux.
  • Ohm and SigFLUP like this

BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!