My distro of choice
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Limerat Feb 05, 2006 9:29 AM EDT |
I became fed up with Microsoft some time ago and started research on all things Linux...After several months of Googeling,I decided Linspire was the distro that best met my needs. So last month I said so long to XP and installed Linspire. Installing itself was as easy as falling off a log. Downloads are made possible by Click and Run,so no dependency hell... It also runs as smooth as silk and as far as I'm concerned, this distro fits the bill. |
| Melio Feb 05, 2006 11:46 AM EDT |
Fedora Core 4 it's cake to install, works great on my hardware, is stable. and has LOTS of packaged apps available on repos. |
| doublejoon Feb 07, 2006 3:07 AM EDT |
Arch for me |
| gg234 Mar 30, 2006 5:03 AM EDT |
i would suggest debian |
| number6x Mar 30, 2006 5:33 AM EDT |
Limerat, After you get comfortable with Linspire, you should learn about debian. Linspire is derived from debian, and there are ways of converting it back pretty easily. In a few years you may find that you can obtain all of the software you want for free on a debian based setup via apt-get. The money you save can pay for a nice dinner or something more fun than a subscription to CNR. For know, just concentrate on learning your current system. Knowledge will come through use. Good Luck! |
| DestinysPuppet Mar 31, 2006 7:56 AM EDT |
I don't have experience with many distros, but I really like OpenSUSE. It's easy to install and use, easily upgradeable (YAST is a great tool) and I've never had a problem with it. Besides, it's free, and non-open source stuff like codecs and plugins (which are not found on the OpenSUSE CDs) can be downloaded in just a few minutes. I'd recommend it to any fed up Windows user. |
| Skapare Mar 31, 2006 9:43 AM EDT |
I've been using Slackware since if first came out (I still have version 1.0 floppy images saved). I tried Red Hat for a while but didn't like it. I've dabbled with Debian some. Ubuntu looks really nice and works fine on my old hardware (everything detected well). |
| fborges Apr 03, 2006 3:15 AM EDT |
I run Debian.... BTW.... number6fox, I'm a Debian user since 1995, and would /not/ recommend it to someone that is just happy with Linspire. Actually, if the guy is happy with Linspire, why the heck should he invest time migrating to *anything* else?? [...] While Debian has lot's of strong points, it has also lot's of weak points as well. Don't get me wrong, I like Debian, been using it for 11 years now, but you must give in that it fails in lots of ways. Debian has been consistently failing to deliver new dists in a timely manner and it does not help the user as much (as some other distros) getting the machine in a configured and fully usable state. |
| number6x Apr 03, 2006 6:00 AM EDT |
fborges, Linspire is a debian distribution, like Xandros, Mepis, Ubuntu, and about 125 other distributions. (At least distrowatch lists 129 distros as debian based, there may be more) So my advice was to get comfortable with Linspire, and then learn about debian. Why? Well, like I said in my post, Linspire is based on debian. If you run Linspire, learning about debian will help you use Linspire more effectively. It will be a natural progression. And they won't have to ever stop using Linspire to learn and use debian, because Linspire is debian! Its just configured differently than a vanilla debian install. I'm sure your install of debian is different than the vanilla install you started with. At least it is if you've ever added a package, or compiled the kernel. also debian has never failed to deliver a 'new dist' in the debian sense of distribution. If you've been using debian for 11 years I would have hoped you realized this by now. If not, let me try to help you understand. Every thing in the debian world is about software package management. To understand the purpose of debian is to look at it from a package management point of view. The philosophy behind is not to provide a completely packaged distribution, ever. The debian distribution is supposed to be the framework you use to install your complete distro through your selection of packages. So you will never, ever get the kind of six month cycle an Ubuntu or SuSE tries for. However, you can get daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annualy, or whatever-ly distribution cycle you choose. But to do so you must do the package selection and updating/upgrading. Remember that debian has three main sections for package selection in distribution, and one for development. These are stable, testing, unstable, and experimental. The names do not mean what most people think they mean. Stable is the closest to what people think, but even there they are usually wrong. Stable actually refers more to the selection of packages than it does to the stability, dependability, or uptime of the system. The packages in the stable branch have all of their dependencies well satisfied with in the other packages in that branch. The organization of the packages is, therefore, said to be 'stable'. The forces that result in a stable package selection, mature software with few bugs left, also lead to that software being 'stable' in the more traditional sense people think 'stable ' refers to. This is a side effect of, not the reason for calling it the stable branch. Testing is the next branch to Stable. The package selections in Testing are pretty well nailed down, but system testing is still being done in order to ensure that all package dependencies are well met before testing is promoted to stable. Testing is the 'beta' of the next debian release, but the goal is to develop a stable group of packages all dependencies satisfied well within that group. The goal is not to add the latest cutting edge software. The software is often newer than the choices in Stable, and this leads to more patching, but the main goal is to achieve a stable package selection. Unstable is the next. Most people think unstable might mean that their machines could crash more often than with stable. But that is thinking about the usual definition of 'stable' not the package-centric debian definition. The package selection of Unstable is, well, unstable, and more likely to change from week to week. You are also more likely to encounter package conflicts when using unstable. The fourth branch is experimental. This is where you are most likely to encounter software that exhibits stability issues (in the sense most people mean). debian has tens of thousands of packages that do not install during a vanilla install. This is because you are supposed to add the software, via apt or dpackage, that you want to add. You decide when to update, and how often. If you never want to experience software package conflicts, always stick with stable. If you're willing to risk some instability in software packaging, uncomment testing, or unstable. Once you have a clean debian install, you will never have to wait for a release to upgrade from a new CD or dvd. All of your updates and upgrades can be handled via apt. I hope that I have helped you to see how debian is different. How if you look at its structure from a package management view, it makes sense. This structure does not lend itself to a version release cycle like Ubuntu, SuSE, Red Hat or others. However, you can have many micro - releases, constantly updating and upgrading at your own pace. So every Friday I suggest you grab a six pack, and throw a debian release party and do an apt-get update! |
| Herschel_Cohen Apr 03, 2006 7:22 AM EDT |
number6x - very nice explanation. When my combination of Debian (started as Sarge 3.0, stable), added mostly Testing and a bit where I had to pull from the Unstable branch, life was good. Indeed, I was updating sometimes more than once a day. It was not until 3.1 Sarge that I encountered major problems. Reluctantly I had to leave Debian for Ubuntu (that is a snap shot of Debian unstable cleaned up and a much smaller set of packages) to have a reliable desktop. What has shocked me was reading the angry blogs of individuals "leaving" Debian for other distributions some actually going to distributions not using either dpkg, apt-get package management. It is doubly troubling reading the rants of Debian stalwarts that seem disconnected from the real problems some have encountered. However, they are not the lone voices in the distribution bigotry I have seen here. I wonder if some are MS plants to make supposed Linux proponents appear as intolerant jerks. On slashdot, I am sure that is the case. I had hoped, however, is was not true here this soon. When I first saw the supposed shouting matches between those loving either vi or emacs I thought it was merely a joke. I have used both, when I was trying to pick up Unix on the fly. I later learned I was using vi key codes to control my command line usage in an older version of the Korn shell. Nonetheless, I used xemacs almost exclusively in my programming. These are tools to solve problems as too is Linux. I am hoping the hot tones I have read in this thread are only part of a joke that I alone have not been informed. As too the advice for obvious lost new comers to Linux that are given the standard "RTFM", without the slightest hint of where those "manuals" reside. Moreover, no hint as to how hard, they can be for someone completely new to the Unix world, to read and understand. I suspect those proffering such advice are looking for kowtows of reverence to be bestowed upon them for their superiority. Sorry I have seen too many block heads posturing in similar manners. Oops, I have digressed to far from the main thrust of this post. Really #6 - great job of explanation, I appreciated it. |
| number6x Apr 03, 2006 7:41 AM EDT |
Thanks Herchel, debian's goal seems to be very different from most other distros, but it does do what it does very well. If all you need are servers, debian stable is probably the best choice for you to make. Most users need more, and as you found out, that can lead to package confilcts. This does create a great opportunity for distros like Mepis, Ubuntu, Libranet, Xandros, et al to fill the gap. These guys try to create a stable (in the traditional sense) usable distribution of software from the mix debian offers. I have used many of the debian distros and have liked many things about all of them. (I haven't used Linspire, but did test out Corel, now Xandros). There seems to be a great deal of willingness to cooperate between many of the debian distros, but the proper combination has not been reached yet. Mepis is testing an Ubuntu based released, the not-debian alliance is willing to change its name, canonical wants the community to drive Ubuntu, not canonical. I think it will take a while, but with so many folks working in the same direction, we're going to get a meta distribution sooner or later. I do miss Libranet though. Ubuntu still has a few years to go before they reach the sweet spot those Canadians hit so easily. |
| fborges Apr 03, 2006 2:46 PM EDT |
number6x, 1. No need to lecture me about debian. I have been a user of it for 11 years and have worked (for a couple of years, but not anymore) as a sysadmin of mid(small?) sized Debian networks (~500 users) and heavy traffic Debian webservers. 2. Note that, in order to fully understand qualities of *any* technical work, one must also reckon its limitations. So **please** spare me from... hum... cheerleading. 3. Now, please re-read my post. that one where I said: ""consistently failing to deliver new dists in a timely manner"". Did you actually read the bit where I say *timelly* *manner*?!? You said: "debian has never failed to deliver a 'new dist' in the debian sense of distribution" Please.... I'm sorry if this sounds rude -it's honestly not my intention- but you don't know what you are talking about. Some Debian developers have quit Debian because of release delays. Have you never read the "notes from the release manager" that Antony Towns used to write documenting the delays and what still needed to be done? And how much one would have to delay the new dist?? Debian has indeed failed to release new dists in time, if we are to use Debian's own (old) release manager idea of releasing a new distro. [...] This is from the days of "Slink" Stable and Potato "unstable" (July 2000), it took some two years or something. From an old email from a friend: ---- One year ago (July 15, 1999 LWN) (...) The Debian project, meanwhile, pondered freezing the 2.2 "potato" version, with talk of a possible release in September (of 1999!). ---- I'm not talking about "Ubuntu 6 month next release" schedule, I'm talking about 1 and a half year long (or something like that) delay *after* the scheduled *new*release* date. This problem has only gotten worse. And yes it's a problem. A big one. For users and admins of networks running Debian *at production sites*. The admin won't update because he simply can't, and the users keep having to use software that is 2 or more years old. [...] There also are several examples of Debian lagging behind other distros in usability. Lack of "out of the shelve" usability is a bug, not a feature. There are way too many rough edges, that *can* perfectly be configured by scripts that still need to be hand configured (ownership of "media" devices when logging in comes to mind (though it might have been dealt with by now I don't know)). So to resume: 1. Listing Debian qualities does not make the existing problems go away. 2. being a Debian fan does not imply not acknowledging its shortcomings. [...] 4. And a Linspire is not Debian. It's Debian based. There is a huge difference. I'm pretty sure, it's more than just "configured debian vanilla", there are probably loads of patches. Even if it was 'just' configuration, don't downplay the cost in time & effort to bring a system such as Debian to (what I guess to be) the level of usability of a Linspire box. [sorry if this whole thing sounded like a rant] Best regards, Francisco |
| jimf Apr 03, 2006 3:34 PM EDT |
fborges, So now, in keeping Debian on their projected release schedule, everyone is bitching that unstable and testing are unuseable.... the thing is just too funny. Still, on the positive side, it looks as though Debian may actual make the next projected realease date. |
| number6x Apr 04, 2006 8:10 AM EDT |
Some times the cake isn't baked until the cake is baked, even if a timer has gone off. because of the debian software package stability-centric release, as opposed to date-centric release cycle, delivery dates cannot be considered important. The measurement of release-ability is done by measuring the stability of the software package dependencies, not by measuring days since a previous release. Whats the word the Accenture types use? Its a different set of metrics. You have to remember what was happening when those developers left. If the software packages, things not in debian's control, are switching from one glibc to another, the package seletion is unstable. You can freeze your package selection to software that works with the old glibc, but then it will be difficult to maintain and upgrade the software packages. Or you can wait until the software developers for a huge number of software packages get up to speed on the new libraries. The debian team can't do the upgrades for all of those other packages. The more commercial vendors decided to go with the first option. There was no downside for them. They got a release out the door, and increased the chance of a customer being forced into a new purchase as they found they needed new libraries for upgrades. debian chose the latter, and was at the mercy of many different bakers. Of course debian's success seems to be based on delivering software whose packages are stable as a group, so the choice for them was clear. Wait until the various cooks finished baking. some people can become very frustrated over decisions like this, but debian's choice was really made long before. The structure of the distribution demands waiting for the cake to be baked. Its kind of a zen thing, or a case of 'form following function'. I've never worked on a software project with those kind of goals. I'm used to the deadline date driven approach. Projects I've worked on have always started cutting functionality in order to beat the clock. We'll get to those features in the next release, and so on and so on. I've worked like that for so long, I don't think I could make the switch to the debian style. Despite my understanding of their proccess, I probably would have left in frustration myself. One way is not better than the other but they are different, and produce different sets of results. |
| IcessLinux May 14, 2006 7:24 AM EDT |
When I started playing around with linux when I was about 12 it was Red Hat and Mandrake. After some years some guy told me I'll never be able to use Slackware cuz it's the "most diffecult" linux you get. I got slackware 9.2 somewhere and after a while I got it installed. I just fell in love with the simplicity of everything. I tried debian and I'm not the biggest fan and I tried Gentoo that I think is really a waste of time. Slackware stays my choice. |
| scrawler May 15, 2006 1:57 AM EDT |
I may as well chime in here, too. I've been using Arch Linux for a while now. Before Arch, Debian. There's nothing I don't like about Debian, but I didn't want my linux "knowledge" to be confined to one distro. |
| dek May 15, 2006 6:11 AM EDT |
I use Ubuntu. With automatix, it does everything I need to do. I love the debian-based package tools and the way that they have provided little hints about what to do if something should go wrong. I've tried redhat 8.- and an early version of Mandrake. I've liked what I heard about debian. When I tried to install it about several years ago I was kind of a newb and didn't understand it very well. So I never got it operating to the point where it became my system of choice. Now I think I could get it operating. Most recently, I used to use suse 9.2 -9.3. YaST2 was so slow because it tries to do everything. When I used yast, it was faster but it didn't work well with the gui tools like update notify. The whole feel of suse was a big slooooowwww distribution. When I went to Ubuntu, it was fast in updating and fast in feel. I do prefer Gnome over KDE. mostly because KDE is setup to look like Windows and it's hard to shake that initial impression. Gnome and I interact just fine, thank you!! (I'm also an emacs user but I'll save that for another day.) ;-D Cheers Don K. |
| ozar May 21, 2006 9:33 AM EDT |
@Limerat: Another archlinux user here. I've never tried Linspire but glad to hear it's working well for you. Main thing is to have fun when using Linux! ;) |
| hiohoaus Jun 11, 2006 7:34 AM EDT |
Mandriva plus PLF. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 16, 2006 12:58 PM EDT |
Gee, fborges, what name did Debian have in March 1995? I don't remember. Ah, just looked it up, it didn't have a name. Buzz was the 1.1 release in June 1996. What I do remember is a lively, interested and above all helpful user base already. Dselect became, and still is, my apt front-end of choice. Indeed, Sarge demonstrated what happens when software reliability becomes the most important factor. Since software is never perfect, the delivery date can indeed slip into perpetuity. I've played with several Linux distributions, had various versions of RedHat at work, but for myself I've found Debian to be the most flexible. Certainly Slackware would be more flexible if I preferred compiling from source, but I do not. That flexibility may be why so many distributions are "Debian based". I would even recommend Debian to a Linux newbie, like I was in 1995, but only if they were already computer literate. For someone more happy with whatever comes pre-installed, then by all reports Linspire sounds good, and I've been quite happy with how KNOPPIX is received by folks. There are different distributions because people are different. There is less than no point in naysaying particular distributions beyond "I prefer how X does it." KNOPPIX has been very useful, especially helping out Windows users who try to put Win2K on their box that came with XP and need the excellent hardware detection in order to figure out what the hardware is to get drivers, as well as when they get an AV file that their Windows software won't play. It also makes a very useful recovery tool to allow for network backup of data before one of the endless "reinstalling windows" cycles, just in case. |
| grouch Jun 16, 2006 4:59 PM EDT |
Bob_Robertson: >"Dselect became, and still is, my apt front-end of choice." I knew there was something strange about you. Isn't dselect actually some developer's twisted joke, kept in Debian only for its historical terrorizing effect on unwary newbies? |
| pogson Jun 21, 2006 9:54 AM EDT |
Bob_Robertson wrote: "I would even recommend Debian to a Linux newbie...". Amen. I have had newbies use Debian Sarge in two schools on Linux terminals connecting via X to my server. After a brief introduction, no student had any problem using it as a desktop setup. We covered the whole of the high school curriculum with software from the repository. As the sysadmin, I did have a few problems with the upstart unofficial AMD64 stuff, but that was all. The thing ran smoothly last winter with no downtime except for problems with an IDE cable. For the computer literate, I taught students how to install Debian and other distros, and how to set up a simple web server. Even the less enthusiastic students were simply amazed what they could do with Debian in minutes. In one room we had Debian running smoothly on Pentium I's as thin clients, Pentium IIIs as servers, Celerons as thin clients and AMD64 3000 as the terminal server/web server/course management system. It was fun for all who put any effort into it. Several times we provided a boot CD so people with confused XP machines elsewhere in the school could function on thin clients. How much more versatile and reliable can software be? |
| tminton Jun 23, 2006 5:32 PM EDT |
Simply, Ubuntu 6.06 |
You cannot post until you login.