Octal

Distro War

   49 members have voted

  1. 1. where do ya fit in?

    • White hat
      2
    • Black Hat
      6
    • Gray Hat
      17
    • I don't wear any fukking hats.
      20

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

84 posts in this topic

Don't some Linux have modified kernels? Though you could just install one on your own afterward, but that doesn't matter.

Compare becuase I wanted to see what people think.

You can but some distro modify there kernels with in house pacthes for software compatilty and hardware support, if you compile one from kernel.org, your hardware might misbehave or not boot

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Ubuntu. I try FC5 and SUSE 10.1. But Ubuntu has a big community. FC5 had forums but it's not as helpful.

So if you are a noob. Ubuntu is the shit. But really I'm using nothing, my linux box is fuck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ubuntu tries to be as user friendly as possible. But it also prevents you from learning stuff by doing it all by yourself.

I'm using slackware, because I like to do it on my own, and customize it easily. I manage my own packages, I solve dependencies by myself. I don't let another software do the work for me. That way, I'm more satisfied. We're never better served than by ourselves.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for bumping the thread but I just wanna add my letters and punctuation on FreeBSD.

A friend of mine brought a couple of ancient boxes around (One had a dead psu and the other was from a skip, they're both from around 94/95) and 'cause there was only one psu and the hardware was quite old I brought round a collection of distros designed for older hardware. None of the Linux distros worked too well so after pissing about with dud ram modules and having the hard disk die on me I moved the working power supply to the previously electric-less machine (The now-dead one had no NIC and I was planning on building a small LAN anyway) and tried FreeBSD.

I've had a little experiance with Gentoo and SuSE and just knowing a few commands got me EVERYWHERE.

Everything I needed to know about there was a man page for which included similar commands, related config files and where the command/subject first appeared in UNIX history. From there I set up my ssh server, FTP server (Both included and extremly easy to onfigure) and X server. I was lucky because the cd it was on had some packages on already so I just ran sysinstall which did everything for me and getting WindowMaker to work was pretty easy.

The only problems I have experienced with FreeBSD are TTYs locking up (Can use mouse and paste letters for commands) and no decent default DHCP configuration.

Building stuff from source is as easy as breathing too :)

I'm gonna go help my dad install FreeBSD on a spare machine of his tonight cause he wants to learn more about UNIX.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My vote goes for PClinuxOS for the noob.

I'm going to setup that for my uncle.

I also only use Debian for servers.

I just can't get over the APT command.

It's brilliant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jus a thought ran through my mind when i was reading this post.

when gloomer said "

My vote goes for PClinuxOS for the noob.

I'm going to setup that for my uncle.

"

imagine if someone saying to you, "i installed openbsd for my grandma to play around in" i mean..

i cracked up as soon as the thought flew through my mind.

i had a mental image of my gran sitting there dazed, not knowing what to do after she asked me to show her how a computer works.

i know this sounds a bit random.

sit there and imagine that tho... :D

sorry about that, i jus felt like i had to share it with someone.

thanks for listening guys

Edited by bsd-roo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jus a thought ran through my mind when i was reading this post.

when gloomer said "

My vote goes for PClinuxOS for the noob.

I'm going to setup that for my uncle.

"

imagine if someone saying to you, "i installed openbsd for my grandma to play around in" i mean..

i cracked up as soon as the thought flew through my mind.

i had a mental image of my gran sitting there dazed, not knowing what to do after she asked me to show her how a computer works.

i know this sounds a bit random.

sit there and imagine that tho... :D

sorry about that, i jus felt like i had to share it with someone.

thanks for listening guys

Honey , why dosent it have images ? lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is interesting to read. But I'm still sure which Distro suits me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is interesting to read. But I'm still sure which Distro suits me.

Which is...

how did slack get behind? Fuck.

*makes ten new accounts, votes for slackware*

Edited by Octal
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fedora is good. From an installing to ease of use point of view, I'd have to say Fedora. I have looked at Fedora, Ubuntu, DSL & Mandriva, and yeah, I'd have to say Fedora. No problems with installing my graphics card and sound card.

The only thing I'm stuck on networking the Linux box to the Windows brick!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Octal: Slackware 11 sucks. I hate to say it cause I loved the older slackware. Fedora getls little love in my opinion, and I hate ubuntu for the simple fact it teaches bad linux habbits. Having said that I installed Ubuntu 6.10 on some computers at the college I go to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Octal: Slackware 11 sucks.

What sucks about it/what was better about the older ones?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slackware is dear to my heart <3 I am currently running Archlinux and I'm loving it a lot. Not a fan of rpm distros or Ubuntu :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ubuntu nites ass! Wouldn't even run as live cd! POS

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Octal: They could have at least went with a newer kernel by default. A number of packages have been removed because only one guy develops it. Like Apache, Gnome, and AbiWord.

on second glance not as much as I though was gone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Octal: They could have at least went with a newer kernel by default. A number of packages have been removed because only one guy develops it. Like Apache, Gnome, and AbiWord.

on second glance not as much as I though was gone.

I thought there were like 3 or 4 people making it, not only one.

All those are easily installed though. I installed fluxbox from scratch in like 20 minutes. All the config scripts were fun.

Anyway, slackware isn't ment to but super up-to-date, it's supposed to be secure and stable. The 2.4 kernel is more stable and secure then a 2.6 kernel is it not? And they also have a preconfigured(or whatever...) kernel in the sources cdroms.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Slackware is meant to be as much like UNIX as possible. It does tend to keep some older packages in the default install disk. The install disks come with source code for both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. IMO, the 2.6.x kernel is just as secure as 2.4.x. However, they both have their pros and cons (completely different topic :) ) Slackware is awesome if you have the extra time to setup many things manually. I do, however, agree that v 10.2 was better.

Dont get me wrong, I like Slackware, but I cant seem to get over how much I like APT. Thats why I stick with Debian. And yes, I do have a box running a version of Ubuntu (xubuntu), since I needed it up and running in a rush. It has everything a average desktop user would need, and thats why I use it. I still use pure Debian religiously, though. :P

So my point is, it all depends on what you need, which makes this whole thread pointless. There have been /many/ 'Distro War' topics on many different servers and they all end the same way.

Alk3

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used gentoo for some 2 years and had gotten very used to it and everything was fine until i was convinced to try Ubuntu. I've not used gentoo since and it feels great, it really does. It also feels good to tell the world that I USE UBUNTU!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Openbsd!!!!!

although i hae just started to use openbsd after being a freebsd user for a while, i love openbsd dispite the fact that freebsd is more stable than openbsd. i cant get over the security of Openbsd.

theo de raadt is the man!!! :fireskull:

lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used gentoo for some 2 years and had gotten very used to it and everything was fine until i was convinced to try Ubuntu. I've not used gentoo since and it feels great, it really does. It also feels good to tell the world that I USE UBUNTU!!!

As many others have said, I hate ubuntu. I mean, it was my first distro, and all. But if you could use gentoo you should try harder distros. I am actually using ubuntu right now, because I woke up a few weeks ago and my partition table was all messed up. I didn't have any other cds, so I just installed ubuntu.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty happy with Fedora! It does what I need it to do! Right now I only need it as an alternative to windows

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used gentoo for some 2 years and had gotten very used to it and everything was fine until i was convinced to try Ubuntu. I've not used gentoo since and it feels great, it really does. It also feels good to tell the world that I USE UBUNTU!!!

As many others have said, I hate ubuntu. I mean, it was my first distro, and all. But if you could use gentoo you should try harder distros. I am actually using ubuntu right now, because I woke up a few weeks ago and my partition table was all messed up. I didn't have any other cds, so I just installed ubuntu.

Yea, i could use gentoo, i still can, but i don't understand the fascination with a "harder" distro...just that description clashes with the reasoning behind using a computer, aka to make your work smooth and to allow you to *DO* stuff not spend time configuring every little thing, it's just a level of control beyond what I need. I've already gotten my share of using a hard distro...if you wanna call gentoo a "hard" distro? I dunno, everything spelled out for you in a wiki isn't too hard, helpful, not hard, however if you prefer a harder distro you might as well get your kicks in before you get sick of it and just want something that works out of the box :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with completely with hac.

I think saying one distribution is better than another because it's "more manual" is an asinine statement. For a Linux power user, knowing how to build a program from sources can be useful from time to time, but it's a counter productive way to go about setting up your entire system (unless you want to, then go right ahead :P ). A computer is supposed to be something that saves you time, and makes you more productive, so why in the hell would you say that manually configuring the user interface is ultimately a "better habit"? Should a programmer spend more time learning to set up an IDE and their code, or should they have to worry about setting up Gnome? We all know the answer to that.

Again, if you want to build a system from scratch go right ahead. Indeed compiling from sources has its benefits (newer versions, testing, customization, ./config'ing options not in the precompiled binaries, etc). But I think making the blanket statement that "Distribution XX is better than YY because it forces you to configure your system" is kind of a silly thing to say.

Now, if we want to bash some package based distros (read: FC and Ubuntu) based on the fact that they include closed-source drivers, and that this hurts open source, go right ahead... :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, if we want to bash some package based distros (read: FC and Ubuntu) based on the fact that they include closed-source drivers, and that this hurts open source, go right ahead... :P

I know this is straying slightly off topic and I'm about to almost disagree with somebody who started their post off with "i agree with hac"....*BUT*

how does a driver that allows people to USE their hardware hurt open source? wouldn't it be worse if there were NO nvidia drivers (picking on them for the ease of example), sure it would be nice for them to be open source, but really, i'd rather have closed source than nothing. But yea, please don't reply to this and stay on topic :-D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now