Which is your Favourite Linux?

I used to be a brave slackware user and apps compiler. that time I did compile almost all software to use.

then when I had another pc to test and take the first steps to make freebsd home. then I got used to ports system and now I'm a lazy apps compiler :) kernel and base I do compile every now and then, from stable.

when I got to know pf, I never ever want to use iptables again ...

none
 
Started off with Slackware in 1994. Used it for about 8 years then got tired of compiling all the time so switched off and on between: Fedora, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, FreeBSD.

My server has been running Debian for 2 years but I'm just about to switch back to FBSD.

I distro hop so much on my laptop its crazy. I was running Mint for the longest time but currently I'm on Kubuntu.

Hated KDE 4.0 so much I switched back to gnome but I find myself currently using KDE 4.1.3 and getting use to it. Still has a lot of bugs to iron out though.
 
I started with Knoppix and Ubuntu LiveCD, cause it wasn't allowed me to install anything to hard drive. :) Then was freebsd.
 
smooth said:
linux sucks FreeBSD rules thats it
in my world there is only
*BSD, windows, MAC OS X
no linux hell no

I did not intend to reply here. Hell no. Threads like this simply "suck in" most incompetent opinions. But putting Windows over Linux ...
Windows is an operating system that should not be connected to the internet. It's so damn broken, and the anti-virus s/w they have to use is the most pathetic measure. For instance, anybody at their right senses could secure a building by blacklisting known bad guys?
Linux is versatile. Red Hat for point'n'click guys, bloated. Ubuntu for "Linux users", bloated. Debian has certainly it's niche. Slackware gives you really nice feeling. And who said installing Gentoo takes 3 days? Yes, it may take 3 days. And you have a fully customized OS after that, if this is what gives you satisfaction, why not? I install FBSD the same way, after installing the base system I tweak my make.conf and rebuild the world. With customizing all the s/w may take three days, too.
 
Gentoo gives no one satisfaction. Gentoo installations barely lasted three or four months for me, and I was fairly conservative with upgrades and such. Gentoo is a broken system.
 
ninjaslim said:
Gentoo gives no one satisfaction. Gentoo installations barely lasted three or four months for me, and I was fairly conservative with upgrades and such. Gentoo is a broken system.

Speak for yourself. I'm posting from a Gentoo box, installation is three years old, updated weekly. Gives satisfaction to me. So your statement "Gentoo gives no one satisfaction" is clearly not true. Unless you consider me "no one"?

Edit: Gentoo is not a distribution, it's a framework to build your own Linux. So you cannot say "Gentoo is broken", you can say "My Gentoo is broken" though. :p
 
You seem to be the exception. If you look at Gentoo forums, you'll see how many people have left for other distributions, or better yet, a Unix.
 
ninjaslim said:
Gentoo gives no one satisfaction.
[...]
You seem to be the exception. If you look at Gentoo forums, you'll see how many people have left for other distributions, or better yet, a Unix.

He is not the exception. Gentoo has it's issues, which are indeed more than other projects', imo due to it's more demanding software management system, somewhat loose organization, serious lack of manpower, and political disagreements among the developers.

I don't argue against the fact that FreeBSD has some important advantages, I wouldn't be using it otherwise. It is obvious that it is a more mature project, with higher quality standards and more solid foundations that is standing much better on it's feet. No one said otherwise.

The point is that for me and for many others, regardless of some occasional very specific hic-ups -none of which had devastating consequences, so far-, gentoo works great (in my case has been for over 5 years in multiple boxes) and provides flexibility which does not exist in other operating systems or distributions.

Other people might not be willing to sacrifice quality for that flexibility, or may not even consider the system flexible. That's perfectly reasonable. I would also be hesitant to choose Gentoo for a role in which even the smallest downtime would be castastrophic, even though it hasn't failed me in the past.

It is, non the less, a system that works reasonably well for some of us and provides some unique features that some of us appreciate.

So please don't be so absolute in your judgement.
 
Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo Gentoo

Is a great toy if set up correctly!
 
I started on Debian and then switched to Slackware before adopting FreeBSD. You can see a definite progression there. While I have heard the accusation that BSD-derived operating systems are harder to use, I have found that not to be the case at all. The ports collection, complete system source tree, and complete documentation are definite advantages in FreeBSD's favor. Everything is just designed to work together. The only thing I really miss is the native flash player.
 
BSD-derived systems seem harder to use because they give you a barebones system upon install. That has never bothered me. I setup my system the exact same way each and every time. When I had to setup a second desktop, I just wrote a post-install script that automates system configuration and application installation and configuration, while spitting enough information so that I know what's going on. Within an hour or so, I have my familiar system setup.
 

brd@

Administrator
Administrator
Developer
anomie said:
Where possible, I run RHEL like it's a FreeBSD system - I choose the minimum package installation, and configure everything in files, rather than using their system-config-* programs.

One of the big downsides of RHEL vs. FreeBSD is the package selection. (I am not in the business of adding non-vendor supported repos to RHEL, and I prefer to not compile from source unless totally necessary.) Ports provides an astounding number of useful apps to choose from.

I'm stuck with RHEL at work for MySQL and Java Tomcat boxes, everything else is FreeBSD. I do similar things trying to keep RHEL thin, but it is a pain when the installer works against you. I sorely miss the ports collection, cause I hate going outside the RHEL supported repo for things I need.

I started with RH, then when RH7 came out, it was too bloated so I tried FreeBSD and never looked back. That was in early 2003.
 
I actually like RHEL/Fedora. Those two (not any other offshoots or re-brands) and Debian are the only Linux systems that seem close to Unix ideology that I'd use. The rest are just too foregone. Also, to me RHEL/Fedora are comparable to Solaris/OpenSolaris, not really to BSD as BSD vision is so different from SysV vision.
 
ninjaslim said:
I actually like RHEL/Fedora. Those two (not any other offshoots or re-brands) and Debian are the only Linux systems that seem close to Unix ideology that I'd use. The rest are just too foregone.

The two versions of Linux that I primarily use are Debian 4.0 at work and Slackware at home. I've found Slackware 12.1 to be stable, secure, and highly reliable, just like FreeBSD 7.0. Also, in Slackware you are free to compile programs, install binary pre-built packages, or you can install source code using build scripts (you are not locked into only compiling software).
At the risk of being branded a heretic I am very happy to be a member of both communities (Slackware, FreeBSD). :e
 
Favorite Linux ?

Currently my favorite OS with a Linux kernel , is Ubuntu, but
I would like to briefly share my history with FBSD and Linux
kernel OS's.

The year was 1996, MS did not have a secure stable OS out yet so
I went to a amateur radio swap meet and picked up copies of
Slackware, and a couple of other Linuxes. The seller suggested
that I try FreeBSD, which at that time I had never heard of.

I spent 2 days trying to install Slackware , 2 days trying the
other Linuxes (I think RH and/or Suse) without much success.
The partioning, compiling and dependencies that did not get
automatically installed drove me to reconsider using MS NT 3.5.

As I was cleaning up, I found the FreeBSD 2.2 install disks. I
decided to try it, what the heck , there was one more day left
this week. In about 2 hours, I had FreeBSD installed, networked
and X running. I have gone back to trying RH, Suse, and lately
Ubuntu, but I find that I am most comfortable with FreeBSD.

The thing I love most about FreeBSD is its stability. After 14
years running it, I have never had a crash that wasn't caused
by hardware , and wasn't easily recoverable. I have introduced
many many friends to FreeBSD, most of with dual boot to it.

Thanks, FreeBSD.
 
I have access to two virtual servers provided by my employer personal use & testing. I am to lazy to test anything so I manage to ignore them for the most part. One of the virts is of course FreeBSD 7.1 Beta(for bug reporting) while the other is RHEL 5 to allow me to screw up things in a controlled environment prior to giving a customer an even bigger headache. On to the point of the thread. My personal desktop runs FreeBSD 7 exclusively. My work desktop/station runs Gentoo by choice which has not failed me in the 2+ years it has been running. The only reason my work station does not running FreeBSD is that our stations are not allowed to run virtualization software and I need things like flash available to fix websites for less(shall we say) astute customers. With the flash support in FreeBSD 7.1 i may be able to correct in the near future. I have tried many linux distros but Gentoo, ELive and Debian top the list in that order.
 
Favorite Linux you say ... if it had to be Linux let it be Draco Linux, it uses OSS4 by default instead of ALSA and PulseShit and pkgsrc.org for package management, also all configuration is based on /etc/rc.conf file.

The second one is Arch Linux, which comes with ALSA by default but OSS is in their repository and configuration is again in /etc/rc.conf

I stay away from Debian as far as possible, their package management (APT) is rubbish, every package split into these small thingies for every occasion: -dev -bin -common -not-very-common -full -extra -asd -wtf ... I am not surprised that they like to mention how MANY packages they have.

Also I hate thirs configuration files schemma, like for apache or nginx for example. sites-enabled sites-disabled modules-enabled modules-disabled asd-disabled asd.conf asd.d asd.modules-not-sure and so on.
 
brd@ said:
I sorely miss the ports collection, cause I hate going outside the RHEL supported repo for things I need.

Exactly. Ports contain a great variety. One small example: when I moved a web server to RHEL recently, I had to switch to a new log analyzer (because I make a practice to stay within the repos, unless it is simply not possible). :\
 
anomie said:
Exactly. Ports contain a great variety. One small example: when I moved a web server to RHEL recently, I had to switch to a new log analyzer (because I make a practice to stay within the repos, unless it is simply not possible). :\

Have you tried to run pkgsrc.org on Linux? Its one of the supported platforms.
 
vermaden said:
Have you tried to run pkgsrc.org on Linux? Its one of the supported platforms.

No, I haven't - but that is an intriguing idea for experimentation. (I ran NetBSD for a short time on one of my laptops, FWIW.)

For production RHEL servers my philosophy could probably be summarized as: keep it simple, secure, "standardized", and easy to maintain. ;) That is why I'm staying with officially supported repos wherever possible. (Even if it is limiting at times.)
 
Top