YOUR favorite Linux flavor?


Favorite Linux flavor?

  1. Mandrake

    1 vote(s)
  2. Redhat

    6 vote(s)
  3. Gentoo

    3 vote(s)
  4. Debian

    5 vote(s)
  5. SuSe

    4 vote(s)
  6. Knoppix

    1 vote(s)
  7. Slackware

    5 vote(s)
  8. FreeBSD

    0 vote(s)
  9. Fedora

    4 vote(s)
  10. Other (please name/describe)

    7 vote(s)
By Mikael ยท 62 replies
Dec 28, 2004
  1. vahnx

    vahnx TS Rookie Posts: 22

    Ubuntu having the best balance of ease of use and stability and at the same time as being the #1 distro people are using right now; it still is not easy to use for the average user. Not because Windows they are more used to which is a common misconception, sure it's a factor but not the only one. Typical users will never want to use the command line and in Windows, guaranteed 99% of hardware will work with Windows whereas Linux, not so much. Not to mention the Windows applications do seem to be faster than the Linux alternative; ie: Open Office vs MS Office, no doubt MS office is faster at launching. Firefox on Linux is also slower than Windows and OS X (which is very confusing but so true, you cannot deny that), not to mention flash support even with the open flash attempts, all fail miserably (crashes, funky behavior, etc.). Jaunty specifically IS MUCH FASTER than it's predecessors not only in boot time but in application. Use it side by side on identical machines. It beats some distros such as Slackware, Fedora, etc. in benchmarks, copying network files, etc.

    As for the forums having 100s of unanswered posts, if you use the search feature for a problem you should find your answers. Think of it like a giant databse; library. If not, you must pursue your thread, post once a day on updates until you get to the bottom because threads do get buried. All of my problems as of 9.04 and help with the forums get solved fairly quickly; and they usually are specific application issues, not so much the OS, but it is a combination.

    What I'm trying to get at is; people think Ubuntu isn't all that and it's not Linux when it is the closest chance as of now that Linux has at getting mainstream along the sides of Windows and OS X which is a good thing but unfortunatelty, most Linux users fear. Since most people that use other distro's hate on Ubuntu, chances of Linux ever reaching the masses are slimmed further. Why wouldn't you want Linux sold with a business model, you can still download the free copy? Sure, it's free open source software, but if you have a company behind it like Ubuntu you can actually make Linux open eyes to show a new alternative than Windows. It still costs cheaper than a machine with Windows and what you are paying the "tax" for is support from the companies. Eg: Dell, most machines you can get Ubuntu and it strips like $50 maybe more off the cost, but they still need to charge a small fee on the OS for the support calls they will get. Ubuntu's not the only Linux company to "charge" for services; remember Linspire or Freespire? Lindows? Also having Linux on mainstream machines with companies to hold their backs, it will only help raise competition with other OS's (commercial or not) which is always healthy for the market, causing more innovation and in the end, a better end user experience which in my opinion, is half of computing. And again, you can download Ubuntu for free but it's nice that you can get it preloaded VS Windows, price stripped off, sure it's a learning curve for newcomers, but the support is there from OEMS like Dell. And yes, Ubuntu is the most offered Linux distro on computers by OEMs, servers I don't know but consumer side; it's Ubuntu.
  2. You ignored everything I've posted about marketing and Debian being able to do the same as Ubuntu. You also seem to refuse to include other distributions in this.

    It's not a common misconception. People use what they are used to. If windows does things a certain way, they expect other OSes to do the same.

    This is a factor, but it is down to hardware vendors not providing good driver support, or supporting open source developers by providing at least some source code or specs etc. (AMD/ATI have done this recently but they are the exception rather than the rule).

    OpenOffice is a different program to MS Office, you cannot compare those in terms of performance on specific platforms. Firefox is optimised for win32 - it's faster under Windows because it's coded for it. Opera is nice and fast under Linux however.

    I've not noticed this. With all due respect you're pulling statistics out of thin air. These kind of claims need data. From what I've seen Jaunty is faster booting but that's it. Any other speed increases would be application specific, possibly due to new versions of those applications in the repos? See how Jaunty compares to Debian unstable (it's parent) and that will be a true gauge of what is Ubuntu and what is just normal updates acquired from upstream.

    I've been a member there since 2006 I think I know how to search and post threads by now. I hardly post there. I prefer to go elsewhere and get informed answers.

    As I said I'm not interested in Linux gaining popularity by being marketed commercially a la Ubuntu. Cost is also not a factor. There is free as in speech and free as in beer. The important one with Linux in the former. Look it up.

    Paying for/selling support is allowed under the GNU/GPL and that's not the issue look that up as well. That's what Red Hat are doing after all.
  3. vahnx

    vahnx TS Rookie Posts: 22

    I didn't ignore your Debian because Ubuntu is Debian based so yes, much applies. But Ubuntu takes it's Debian base a step further by adding further ease of use and functionality on top of what Debian already is. Ubuntu, Fedora, SuSe, Mint, and Debian are the top 5 distro's right now according to distrowatch, and as you can see Mint derrives from Ubuntu which derives from Debian, yet Ubuntu is on top.

    As for other OSs doing things a certain way and what users expect, all OS's should have a similar ease of use; you wanna rearrange and item you should drag and touch to place it with a cursor or touch screen...The way OS X and Windows 7 works has a natural feel which Ubuntu almost has and no other distro has. What they need to implement in Ubuntu/other Linuxes is a way to just grab and drag icons and menus all over the place. In OS X and Windows 7 you can rearrange your taskbar/doc without thinking, whereas Linux the icons by default are normally small and not easily arrangeable. You shouldn't know how to edit system files to change the way the OS works, it should be built in with ease of access in mind.They need more dragging and dropping, even in Ubuntu/Debian Gnome's interface you should be able lets say, to drag the Applications menu to the bottom of the screen in the corner, or after the System menu.

    For the typical programmer, yes, having the source is nice. For a typical user, who cares if it's open or not? As long as it works and it works well they could care less about the source code and knowing it's "open". The "Hardware Drivers" system works great on a variety of machines with obscure hardware and normally the drivers for wireless etc. just work out of the box.

    Firefox as I understand is also open source so why not make it optimize for Linux and make it faster than Windows (I think Ubuntu uses their own Firefox I believe but it's still slower than Windows binary), same with Open Office, in theory it should launch and perform faster than MS Office.

    This is what bugs me most. I don't pull "statistics out of thin air". I don't read charts from people that analyze this stuff in depth, I sit at a machine with a multi-boot system, boot one OS, launch some apps, copy files, test the speed so I can get a hands on feel. Jaunty feels much quicker from personal use than other distros and not just one machine, several machines. And yes there actually are reports out there that run tests that show this, but as I said, test for yourself and scrap the charts someone else did.

    That's how you get your answers resolved if you have an issue, by searching, not reading the posts on the front page.

    I noticed you personally are not interested in Linux gaining traction, but I do because I believe that's the only thing that will help Linux improve in terms of ease-of-use and stability. Linux remained far behind in usability and popularity until recently and now that it's catching up, it may very well wind up on many desktops and maybe by 2020 we'll see Windows, Mac, and Linux desktop's side-by-side.

    Why do some people wish for it to remain a niche, just so they won't get those average users asking them questions? It won't be "cool" anymore to use Linux? Viruses will wind up on Linux causing more programmers having to fix these holes while more and more flaws are discovered? Remember when OS X was the clean, safe OS. Now that it's gained traction you see all these Java exploits, trojans, etc. hitting OS X.

    Ubuntu is a great distro and never limit yourself to one OS, and don't limit yourself to one Linux OS. Try them all, compare features and speed, then decide which one works and which one doesn't, which ones have those easy to use applications. Don't give up because of one bad experience. I keep trying new distros all the time and different versions and I like most of them but in the end; Ubuntu gives the best of all worlds; fast, easy, stable, and well supported. Yes, again, it's Debian based, you can use Debian. Ubuntu is Debian but it is just better suited for the typical user because of the community backbone in place and growing along with the marketing helping Linux get to novices. I'm sure if more people used Debian or other OS's that more companies would get behind it in place of Ubuntu but they just aren't, does anyone know why? I personally think it's because of how strong Ubuntu came out when it was released and it quickly took over as the number 1 Linux distro in downloads and all because again, of it's combination of ease of use and stability.
  4. You clearly haven't understood where I'm coming from, nor do you really seem to grasp the Open Source philosophy. Without which there would be no Linux. So I won't attempt to challenge any of your other points as it's going over old ground again and again.

    You've entirely... entirely missed the point here. "having the source is nice"?! I rest my case. Please go and find out why having the source is vital. If you don't know this by now then I'm not sure you ever will.

    I'm amazed that any Linux user could be capable of coming out with a statement like this!?

    Why do you think Linux is secure, stable and has such an abundance of free software available? Why does Ubuntu have repositories full of such software? Software that for the most part inter-operates and shares components perfectly. Without the open source element, Linux would cease to exist. It is so very secure precisely because of this! Not because it's less common that windows! That is a stupid myth put out by clueless people. GNU/Linux code is tested, scrutinised, debugged, fixed and often re-written by millions of programmers/users worldwide. MS or Apple code is coded and tested by MS or Apple employees! GNU/Linux code is patched and updated again and again and again until it's right. Proprietary code is only patched if it's cost effective. That's the big difference.

    GNU/Linux is, in simple terms, tested constantly by "hackers" that try to break into it. The reason that it's so much more secure than windows is because it's solid, has proper user and process level permissions and is not full of holes and exploits like Windows. So if you think Linux is secure simply because no one is, or less people are, targeting it then you are gravely mistaken.
  5. vahnx

    vahnx TS Rookie Posts: 22

    So you think if Linux is more popular than Windows and it's full of newbs, that Linux still will be as "secure"? Sure, fundamentally Linux is hands down secure, but if it was the most popular choice for users, the hackers aren't going for the 1% userbase, they'll go for the marketshare; ie Linux. You cannot argue the fact that if Linux was the tallest nail, it will get hammered first. No one can argue that. Hackers in the end are there for profit, and if 99% were using Linux, why would they go after 1% Windows?

    Yes having a program open source is nice for those who can program, but otherwise a novice doesn't care how it was built as long as it works! It's not that hard to see! You must learn how to put yourself in the body of a novice and think how someone new to computers would react. They wouldn't know if it was open source or not, they'd know if it was free, and if they paid for it would it be that much better? Case of Windows and OS X, closed source, must pay, yet easy to use for new comers. Linux, free, open, difficult to use for new comers. In the end again; Ubuntu is the closest you will get to a consumer wanting to choose the free VS the paid and it is not quite there whereas Windows and OS X is.

    I love the idea of open source software and Ubuntu combines much open source software and takes it one step further by bundling easy to use; stable applications and wrapping them in it's own easy to use consumer oriented OS.
  6. What do you think get's hacked mostly? Desktops or servers? And what is running on Servers! Work it out.

    Sorry mate - no further comment. You've now got to the stage where you're clearly talking bollox. Just you carry on there with your fingers stuck in your ears.

    Have a nice day.

  7. vahnx

    vahnx TS Rookie Posts: 22

    I'm sorry I didn't mean to attack you and please try to be nice to me you sound mean when you personally attack me :(, and yes Linux is strong in the server market for it's stability and security. What I'm getting at is they need the Desktop Linux to be more user friendly so people will choose Linux as their OS, not Windows or Mac. Sure you're telling me Linux is great for servers and you must be leet to use Linux, and I'm telling you it's not just a server OS and Linux makes a great desktop OS, just needs more time before it's the OS of choice for consumers. I'm not talking bollocks, I'm talking the future of computing.
  8. Sorry if I was rude, but I do feel that you are missing the point of GNU/Linux software.

    Anyway, I've stated my opinion and there's no hard feelings on my part.

  9. Obi-Wan Jerkobi

    Obi-Wan Jerkobi TS Maniac Posts: 502

    I seem to be in more favor of the Fedora area but lately I've been testing the OpenSuSE 11.2 Milestone with its 2.6.30 Linux kernel :), I really like it and might switch from my Fedora KDE install. Debian is also my second.

    It's pretty funny how old this thread is, Mandrake has been long gone and Mandriva has taken its place.
  10. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,742   +421

    Almost every distro I try has SOME issue with networking with my computers. Apparently it is impossible to make something browse Windows Vista and Mac OS 10.4/10.5 shares out of the box. (Yet Mac OS doesn't seem to have any problem doing it..)
  11. ChrisDown

    ChrisDown TS Rookie Posts: 125

    Why is a BSD distro on this list? It is a shame it is being compared with Linux :(

    I'd vote NetBSD, but if this really is a linux distro topic unlike what the options suggest, I'd go for Slack.
  12. vahnx

    vahnx TS Rookie Posts: 22

    This thread is pretty old, and most of them are older/unused Linux distros. Don't get offended because a lot of people do confuse FreeBSD with Linux which is perfectly fine IMO.

    I've been playing more with the netbook remixes such as Moblin lately but it is horrid. Highly unrecommended.
  13. WinXPert

    WinXPert TS Guru Posts: 445

    PCLinuxOS is my top pick though I have at least 12 variants of Puppy Linux. By the way FreeBSD is not Linux.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...