Which is your Favourite Linux?

SuSE / OpenSUSE
Debian
Slackware

I've been using those for some time and I've not once had any major issues with them.

I hate Gentoo, RedHat, and Fedora.
 
Arch Linux. However as soon as the day comes that the intel drivers run smoothly then it will be replaced with FreeBSD. As some other people said its just more elegant in its design. BSD is a bit like Windows Server in terms of how well things work together and that is a major draw for me.:)
 
- back to 2004, knoppix for hardware support and the huge catalog of software available to test
- I also like archlinux because it's lightweighted and the colored output is very nice.
- I could have liked Gentoo, because the name were cool and the doc nice. It were before using it on a dedicated server x64: whois command not found (okay, a lot of small utilities to emerge...) and a lot of software marked unstable requiring a lot of config to install (by the way, the install process with all those flags is annoying).

Weinter said:
OK OK I know ALL of us LOVE BSD
But I am sure you all played with Linux before conversion?
So which is your favourite?

Well... not really, I've tried to install but never used Linux before FreeBSD.

1995 - tested Slackware. No mouse support (I had a mouse with a wheel).
1998 - wanted to test MkLinux on my PowerMac 7200. Model not supporhttp://forums.freebsd.org/images/ ... n10.gifted.
1999 - got a Corel Linux cd in a computer magazine. Can't install, no AGP support.
2001 - we've a project to get a dedicated server on an IRC channel, the sysadmin picks FreeBSD. I got familiar with this OS. It were good
2002 - in // we got a second server under Debian. Where is sockstat? What's the bash syntax for setenv? #@! I must apt-get install libfoobar-dev after libfoobar
2002-2004 - "Linux sux. FreeBSD rulez." phase.
2005 - Got Knoppix. Some months later, a crash on my laptop hard disk occurs. The time to get a new hard disk, I spend some days under Knoppix. Were a rather nice experience, especially a night with Stellarium.
2006 - Pragmatism and idealism lead me to prefer BSD licence to GPL licence.
2008 - After days to compile KDE and Gnome to use FreeBSD as desktop environment, I start to recommand Ubuntu to newbies instead to say than KDE or Gnome are still KDE and Gnome under Linux, FreeBSD or WhatEverOs and so they should use FreeBSD to learn something different.
2010 - I'm okay with Linux but don't really want to use it. I offer to some LUGs to present BSD systems at their install party and experiment to recommend PC-BSD to new users.
 
Debian.

For my Linux use I ditched Fedora after F4, because I felt cheated about the time period for future updates and I had both F5 and F6 destroy partitions in situations where the old classic fdisk worked right. At the time I didn't have my test farm diskless and had harddrive with multiboot installations. I ran Debian on 64 bit boxes for Ubuntu on 32 bit for a while but Ubuntu has decided to turn itself into a toy that isn't suitable for my uses, so it's all Debian now. Debian also gives me a very wild ride now, in particular with bad udev updates, various other fiddling with device entry handling, stupid warnings about "you won't be able to boot" and botched /etc/rc updates.

One main reason why I use Linux in more than testing is that FreeBSD ports update me forcefully to newer Xorgs, and Xorg breaks things for me left and right. But alas all Linuxes also use broken Xorgs and I now run my Xorg server in a chroot (session in there not in chroot) and use an Xorg version of my choice. At this point I expect that Debian-stable can't satisfy the need for a working desktop much longer either and then I am back to square one and probably have to do pretty massive mixing of chroots to be secure where I have to, have old working versions of things where I need them and can have current versions where I want them.

I expect to re-evaluate Fedora, to maybe try REL/CentOS on the "outside" box if my desktop is chrooted anyway, or convert some Linux boxes back to FreeBSD. Some FreeBSD problems have disappeared.

I can't say that I am overly happy with the way that things are going with any of the above OSes. But hey I can post complaints on the Internet so it can't be all broken :)
 
I tried Slackware a few times, but its too time consuming to hunt down dependencies and the automated package management systems that were available seemed to be rather out of date. That was probably about a year ago then I went back to Ubuntu got sick of it immediately and went on to conquer Arch Linux. Feels like it was an eternity ago now.
 
I don't really like package managers that track down dependencies for you. I used Ubuntu for a few weeks in the past, but gave up on it when I was trying to remove one package and apt-get wanted to remove the whole gnome desktop with it.
 
Whilst I find no dependency checking (slackware) to be flawed, I do hate the way ubuntu and debian work with this overly complex repository and indexing (complete with many different names for the same packages)

I just wish unix developers would stop using so many damn packages for their applications. Or at least the linux package makers to stop splitting packages into such small parts.

Just to compile OpenMotif, I have had to install the following Debian (non-base) packages

xorg
xorg-dev
x11proto-print-dev <-- Includes print.h
libxp-dev <-- Includes libXp (this should be in the same package as print.h)

I much prefer the fact that with FreeBSD, I only had to install xorg.

One thing I have never quite worked out is that FreeBSD packages are made via the ports system. How are Debian packages made? By hand?
 
I do agree that alot of programs pull in too many dependencies. On FreeBSD you have a certain degree of control over that with the compile time options. I know what you mean about Ubuntu/Debian/others. You try to dump something like pidgin or some gnome gui app and it wants to take the whole desktop off with it.
 
I have an old Fedora core 3 machine for doing multimedia. But I have upgrade the kernel from source and it runs the latest versions of most programs. So this machine is not realy FC3 but it is my own fedora core whatever. I also run Fedora 6 and 7. In the past I have tried Suse, Mandrake, Debian, slackware and Ubuntu. But I like the Fedora stuff more than all.
 
Screw fedora - Installed apache but couldn't view any of the index.html by default, had to go in and change directives when there was no reason to. Where are the codecs? Apparently in gstreamer-ugly but was never able to get that working after hours of searching the web and forums. Basically it sucks as a desktop and sucks as a server because it doesn't know which one it wants to be.

Screw ubuntu - The philosophy of ubuntu is "if you have to google a tutorial on how to enable su then the os is more secure, but don't ask about it on our forums because we'll just delete your post and then lecture you because we don't know shit about linux but we wrote a gui for it so that makes us experts" ha, what a joke.

Linux Mint is perfect for a desktop - Flash + codecs preinstalled, easy to use guis and software installation. All the good from ubuntu without the bad.

BSD is perfect for servers and network devices - comes installed with just the needed software and works perfectly + BSD license.

Oh and when it comes to forensics SCREW helix. "mount -o rw" should mount something as read/write, end of story. Use backtrack for that stuff. Even though I'm still confused as to why backtrack can auto-detect a single network card but won't auto-detect multiple ones.
 
My favorites are Debian, Fedora (+ RHEL) and Arch Linux. Arch Linux was the last Linux distro I used before started to use BSD. Arch Linux served as a good learning platform for me and I definitely liked its adherence of the KISS-principle. Its config files and ABS is very similar to config and ports in FreeBSD.
 
Debian, I won't even consider anything else. Now that I have become more familiar with FreeBSD I wish Linux would adopt the same clear distinction between the core operating system (base in FreeBSD) and 3rd party software (ports).
 
kpa said:
Debian, I won't even consider anything else. Now that I have become more familiar with FreeBSD I wish Linux would adopt the same clear distinction between the core operating system (base in FreeBSD) and 3rd party software (ports).

For me personally I've always hated having multiple update ways in BSD. I use FreeBSD and PC-BSD and I like it, but when it comes to updates and patches... Wellllll... freebsd-update is a step in the right direction, but when a Port needs to get patched because there is a security flaw in one, I can't stand it.

I have a lot of old machines because I simply can't afford to buy everything new, and all but one of my boxes, are single core Processor machines with ... Other than my new machine, and one that has 768 MBs of RAM, they all have 512 MBs or less of RAM, and only 3 are above 733 MHz Processors.

Patching security in Ports for me is generally going to take long enough that I can't most of the time. I run Debian on one machine that I use as a secondary Desktop / Workstation, which means I use it to check email with about 4 different clients (I'm picky and have a lot of stuff to check, and multiple accounts for whatever I use it for, such as personal accounts for family and friends, a few for mailing lists, and other stuff) and then some web browsing, and then I use it also to make most of my music with LMMS, and then LAME to turn that into an MP3 to upload on Myspace so people can hear it since I don't own a radio station, and then I use it for other stuff too. It has two hard drives; The 80 GB one it came with that has XP Home on it, and then the 160 GB drive I installed with Debian. Rarely boot into Windows.

My Laptop runs currently a version of Slackware that's modified, and I use it for basically whatever.

My FTP server runs Slackware 12.2, and I like that because, well, it doesn't need much, I don't use X on it, and log in mostly over SSH.

These things may not be the bottom of the line in terms of speed, but they're for sure dated. And for me to upgrade Ports, on stuff like that.... A cell phone would probably be faster most of the time, and the way Ports work, and how they are "separate" from the base system I can update with "freebsd-update" means I have to sit there for a LONG time. The last time I did a Port upgrade, it took like a week, and since I was fairly knew to it, I ended up having to reinstall because it didn't all work right.

I'd LOVE to have a tool that updated everything. In Debian, it's this:

apt-get update && apt-get upgrade

Done.

In Slackware, I can do a couple of things. I've used slapt-get before, and swaret a lot, and slackpkg works fine too, and I've also just downloaded each patch by hand with wget and upgraded them by hand, which was really easy too:
upgradepkg *.tgz
Done.

The FreeBSD system, would take a LONG time. I don't set compile time options because I'm not a programmer, don't really care about that stuff, and usually leave things as is when they get installed other than Window Managers that I may configure a certain way or something. But as for compiling, well, like I said, I'm no coder by any means, and I don't really WANT to sit there telling it how I want it compiled.

When I first started using FreeBSD, I was totally confused why the Security Mailing List was telling me to compile patches and reboot, and why freebsd-update didn't update ports, and when I learned how it did, I was like WTF, why is this so time consuming? I couldn't understand why anyone would want to do that, and as I got older, I started realizing why it has a benefit to it, but at the same time, for someone like me, or the average user, there really isn't many things that would make anyone who is just using their computer for web surfing want to actually spend that long to do that.

I think once someone does a system that upgrades / patches the whole system with one tool, it will be a LOT easier getting people to use FreeBSD instead of Linux. It's hard enough getting someone using Windows to try Linux where updates can be shown in the tray, or you have a tool like Yast, Yast2, or MCC from Mandriva, and the others, like APT, that grab all your updates for you and install them while you get Coffee or something, and then maybe a reboot if you updated the Kernel, and then you're done, to want to do what it takes to upgrade Opera, or Pidgin. I would LOVE for that to happen in BSD.

I'm not aware of anything that does this, and I'm actually reading through some of the docs right now because, well, it's been a while, but as far as I know, other than the Base system, the Ports still need to be upgraded all at once, and it takes a LONG time.
 
I have on wife computer with Windows installed Arch Linux. It is fast, updated, everything works and as a desktop IMO is the same secure as FreeBSD.
 
My Wife's Computers run a mix of Windows, Slackware, and Solaris. She's actually better with Unix than I am I think lol. Arch Linux seems popular around here. That's good though, years ago when I first saw Arch, it was like, a really unknown project at the time, and I saw it, and thought it looked interesting, so I decided to download it. It was YEARS ago, and they only had one or two releases at the time, and when I got it installed I actually thought it was really nice. I was shocked a few months ago to see how it's grown so much. I haven't used it in a while, but all of this talk makes me wonder if I should install it on my laptop since I've been using that to test stuff lately anyway heh.

I've also started to really like Linux Console. It's basically a version of Linux that is made to work on older hardware, and it has a really nice look and "feel" to it. I like it, and I also thought the same of Mamba, and, of course, MoonOS, which looks beautiful.
 
"the ports still need to be upgraded all at once..."
...
you can use csup with certain parameters to only fetch only
port updated ports tree, thus updating only one port.
...
Something I found out about...
hopefully I explained it better in another post (search on 'uniq")
Say you want to postpone the gnome upgrade.
And you presently have a lot of gnome ports to upgrade
You make a list of ports , tee it to a file, that need upgrading.
(pkg_version...
Wait a week or so.
cvsup the entire ports tree.
make the 2nd tee'd output file from pkg_version.
....
Run the cli, the output should be ONLY those needing upgrading
per below::
SINCE the first pkg_version a week ago.
...
Code:
sort file.1 file.1 file.7 | uniq -u | lookat
(lookat, or less, or more, or just to a terminal)
...
Without that command line, you would not know how to
skip updating just a lot, and glance at the result
to update only the ports needing newly updating within
the last week (in this case, you would ignore results
from the uniq pipe, that are gnome - based).
...
Hope that is clear enough to serve as a mini-guide...
 
I know you CAN do that, but from the docs I'm reading, it can make the system unstable. I think the wording was "Although the BSD core team does what it can to make sure these work backward compatible, there is a chance" or something like that.

I still haven't updated my ports yet because quite frankly, the machine it's on right now, is a 433 MHz Celeron, with 192 MBs of RAM. That's going to take a LONG time.
 
gore said:
I still haven't updated my ports yet because quite frankly, the machine it's on right now, is a 433 MHz Celeron, with 192 MBs of RAM. That's going to take a LONG time.

Why dont you update using packages instead? It`s not as up-to-date but it works and its so much faster
 
No, you got that slightly wrong ;) To use up-to-date packages on a -RELEASE, you must set PACKAGESITE to the -STABLE package repository. Search PACKAGESITE on these forums, there are a few examples around.
 
DutchDaemon said:
No, you got that slightly wrong ;) To use up-to-date packages on a -RELEASE, you must set PACKAGESITE to the -STABLE package repository. Search PACKAGESITE on these forums, there are a few examples around.

So basically I could have set that to -STABLE whatever version, and then done all this WAY easier?....MAN!

I'm actually right now checking what to do with portupgrade and seeing if I can use my test machine to see how long it would take, because it's been a LONG time since I've done this. I'm so used to other OSs and how they work that I literally haven't in over a year or so.

Someone told me once it was easier to just run:

portupgrade -af

And let it roll, but that ended up breaking a lot of stuff for some reason and it took forever. Basically I spent almost a week having to come in and hit a button here and there for it to run, only to have a broken box once it finished heh.

Didn't bother me SO much, because I have back ups of everything important on like 7 disks and a bunch of other stuff, but the time...lol.

EDIT:

I just noticed something I hadn't seen before; "Portmaster"... This thing seems a little easier to work with than Portupgrade, and I'm actually using it right now on my test machine to do an upgrade of my Ports. Right now I'm in the UPDATING file reading there, and basically following along to see how it goes. I do kind of like this new one though, which probably isn't new at all, but I'm used to stuff from the books I have, which usually only talk about one or two ways.

So right now, I've done "portmaster p5-" and letting that run.

Originally I was just going to go "portmaster -a" but, the UPDATING file seem to have a method, so why not right?
 
I have usued almost 20 different flavors of linux...so it;s a lot......among them Ubuntu desktop works fine.....but I don;t like Gnome so I've installed KDE, and works fine......Suse is very slow.....Slackware is almost a BSD system, but it has an issue......difficult to get applications.

I used Mint linux too as a desktop.....I changed Gnome for KDE again....

PC Linux 2009 y PC OS Linux are good too....

But after all almost I use FreeBSD 7.3 or 8.0.....I think the best in many situations at all.....good performance......an oustanding docs system on line.....and ports/paxkages go well once you have a good undestanding about them.

There is a program I would like ported to BSD, it is Xdosemu.....great to run DOS applications using X interface (I apologize all the UNIX fans that hate DOS....but some programs are still useful).....does anybody how can I get it to BSD........oe maybe wich rpm or wathever kind should I install using linux emulation.
 
raul_comodoro said:
I have usued almost 20 different flavors of linux...so it;s a lot......among them Ubuntu desktop works fine.....but I don;t like Gnome so I've installed KDE, and works fine......Suse is very slow.....Slackware is almost a BSD system, but it has an issue......difficult to get applications.

http://www.linuxpackages.net

There you go.


But after all almost I use FreeBSD 7.3 or 8.0.....I think the best in many situations at all.....good performance......an oustanding docs system on line.....and ports/paxkages go well once you have a good undestanding about them.

There is a program I would like ported to BSD, it is Xdosemu.....great to run DOS applications using X interface (I apologize all the UNIX fans that hate DOS....but some programs are still useful).....does anybody how can I get it to BSD........oe maybe wich rpm or wathever kind should I install using linux emulation.

BSD runs Linux apps just fine. Shouldn't be that much of an issue. To bad YAST doesn't work on BSD. I wouldn't be on my 5th try to get Ports updated.....My tree is up to date, the ports are now basically broken.
 
Back
Top