DEFINITIVE: Which Linux Distro? (poll)


Which Linux Distro do you prefer?  

773 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Linux Distro do you prefer?

    • Slackware (or derivatives)
      33
    • Debian
      56
    • SUSE Linux (or derivatives)
      99
    • Fedora Core (or Redhat, or RHEL)
      120
    • Gentoo (or derivatives)
      86
    • Ubuntu
      273
    • Other Debian Derivative (Mepis, Kanotix, etc)
      25
    • Arch
      19
    • Linspire
      22
    • Mandriva
      40


Recommended Posts

I just want to know why Fedora/Mandrake/SuSe need 3+ CDs, while Gentoo only needs 2, and Ubuntu only needs 1? Does it mean that Gentoo/Ubuntu needs more work (read installation of software) to get it up and running properly? or does Gentoo/Ubuntu just not come with a lot of redundant stuff?

585678428[/snapback]

Fedora / Mandrake / SuSe has a LOT of extra applications that desktop users would like. Fedora Core 3 takes 6.7GB to install 'Everything'.

Gentoo isn't really a Desktop system, it doesn't have a Graphical User Interface as default, and it only installs the sheer necessities.

All Linux distros can install all Linux apps, but not everyone wants to install all the 'extras' which is great for servers who want to run Gentoo without a pretty interface and redundant software that they will never use, and this gives the user complete control over 'what to' and 'what not' to install.

P.S.

Fedora Core 3 & Gentoo 2005.0 rocks!

Close, I guess- Ubuntu's pretty similar to Gentoo (haven't worked extensively with either, feel free to correct me there), but there's one *huge* difference-- Ubuntu is built for you.

There's a serious, serious speed difference in Gentoo when you make the kernel and programs yourself with optemisation versus downloading the prepackaged bins or just compiling with no optomizing.

585656596[/snapback]

Oh, really? Have your run benchmarks to measure this "serious, serious" speed difference? I believe you'll find that the speed increases are marginal at best, and some popular compile optimisations used by many gentoo users (for instance -O3 in your CFLAGS) can sometimes slow down software rather than speed it up. I think you'll find it difficult to provide links to solid evidence which demonstrates a practical, noticable jump in speed when using hardware-specific optimisations.

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge gentoo supporter, and have used it pretty much exclusively as my main OS for a couple of years now, and I think it is still the best system for me to use (portage is just so ridiculously powerful when you learn all the ins and outs of the additional portage tools available), but I do honestly believe that the oft-touted "speed advantages" that gentoo has over other distros are pretty much non-existant in practice. Any reasonably recent, well-configured and setup linux system will run fast.

Gentoo is powerful for the flexibility it brings to the table more than anything else, imho.

I've always been a Fedora fan, but I decided to download and play around with Ubuntu 5.04 earlier today and all I can say is wow... very nicely done. Of course I've only used it for about three hours now, but from what I can tell so far, it is a much better distro then Fedora.

Debian / Other Debian-based...

More precisely: MEPIS.

Holds similar quality as Ubuntu, but this distro was from the scratch designed for KDE, not Gnome.

Currently, the popularity ranking (based on distro page visits) on Distrowatch.com shows:

1. Ubuntu

2. Mandrake

3. Fedora

4. MEPIS

5. SUSE

6. Debian

7. Knoppix

... which speaks a bit of its popularity and curiosity it's raising. :)

I'm therefore a bit surprised that it's not even a choice here. :(

Currently, the popularity ranking (based on distro page visits) on Distrowatch.com shows:

1. Ubuntu

2. Mandrake

3. Fedora

4. MEPIS

5. SUSE

6. Debian

7. Knoppix

... which speaks a bit of its popularity and curiosity it's raising. :)

I'm therefore a bit surprised that it's not even a choice here.  :(

585722483[/snapback]

Well, our installed base here at Neowin seems to be different than the general population who visits Distrowatch.

Our order (as of today) is

1. Fedora

2. Gentoo

3. SUSE

4. Ubuntu

5. Mandrake

While Mepis may be a great Debian-based distro, if we add the "Other Debian" + the "Other - Please specify" categories up, and assume that they all were Mepis, it still would not add up any higher than Ubuntu (which dominates the Debian varieties here).

But, in the Open Source world, things change very quickly. Ubuntu has rocketed into the spotlight from a new distro freshly created. At the end of the year, we will have the ability to remove a distro or two and add in whatever new popular items have come up.

is there a linux distro out there that is able to fully "emulate" windows xp?

i'm looking for something that would be able to run almost all windows applications, along with autodetect hardware and install, but with none of the hassles of windows.

585733665[/snapback]

I think that is called Windows.

You cannot jump into Linux expecting it to be just like Windows and have any sort of expectation of success.

In Windows, you are a user. In Linux, you must learn to be an administrator. It is extra work to get to learn to manage your system, but once that is done, you will find that Linux runs much more reliably and problem-free than Windows.

But you cannot start with a requirement that it runs Windows applications.

Why is Ubuntu so popular?  What does it have that others don't?

585748123[/snapback]

It's Simple

It everything a noob or a basic *nix user wants

it like fedora 3 w/out the bs (mp3,etc...) and it has a bunch of nifty features that are made see able

Great way to switch from windows to linux

Debian / Other Debian-based...

More precisely: MEPIS.

Holds similar quality as Ubuntu, but this distro was from the scratch designed for KDE, not Gnome.

Currently, the popularity ranking (based on distro page visits) on Distrowatch.com shows:

1. Ubuntu

2. Mandrake

3. Fedora

4. MEPIS

5. SUSE

6. Debian

7. Knoppix

... which speaks a bit of its popularity and curiosity it's raising. :)

I'm therefore a bit surprised that it's not even a choice here.  :(

585722483[/snapback]

I believe SimplyMEPIS was largely derived from Knoppix. I could be wrong though.

Most Debian/KDE live CD distros are derived from Knoppix.

Why is Ubuntu so popular?  What does it have that others don't?

585748123[/snapback]

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/releases/

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/

In a nutshell, Ubuntu is desktop-oriented, community-driven distro for x86, AMD64 and PPC, with a rapid development cycle based on snapshots of Debian Sid.

Long version:

Ubuntu has a 6-month release cycle, sychronized with each release of Gnome. At each release cycle, it takes a snapshot from Debian Sid and integrates Ubuntu's own changes, then it's repository is frozen at the end of the release cycle. Ubuntu achieves a more rapid cycle by narrowing its focus to to the desktop, restricting its target to 3 CPU architetures and shrinking the number of offcially supported packages. Ubuntu splits Debian's main section into two: Ubuntu main (officially supported) and Ubuntu universe (community supported). Ubuntu main only has a fraction of the packages in Debian main, the rest is in universe.

While it's taken from Debian Sid at each cycle, Ubuntu has it's own package repository (unlike, say, Knoppix, Progency, MEPIS, etc., which all relies on Debian's official repo). Each final release version of Ubuntu has its own frozen repository, so you don't have to worry about a newer (but buggy) package in Sid's archive breaking your system.

It also tracks Gnome closely. One of its missions is to include the latest version of Gnome as soon as it's released. Ubuntu Hoary went final in a matter of days after Gnome 2.10 did.

I find Ubuntu's installation painless. Debian tends to ask me too many questions during X server installation, while Ubuntu pretty much did everything automatically. Though Ubuntu is probably not quite as good as Knoppix in the hardware detection department. Ubuntu also includes some closed source hardware drivers by default, though it otherwise stick to a free software-only policy.

Ubuntu is commited to fit its installation on a single CD. You can download all the xtra packages using apt-get. Like Debian, you can always download the next release via apt-get and do an in-place upgrade, instead of downloading another ISO for the upgrade.

Ubuntu is also the first and only Debian distro to switch to X.org's X server. Debian Sid is still using XFree86 and X.org is still broken.

Finally, Ubuntu has a lively community similar to that of Fedora. It can be difficult to find support for Debian due to its breadth. It relies on some 30 mailing lists and has no official forums. Ubuntu's support is much more centralized, and its narrower focus also make it easier to find answers.

What Ubuntu doesn't differ from Debian is that Ubuntu has a strict free software policy, it's built on Debian Sid so it maintain the same rigid packaging policy and Q&A. Apt-get provides the same painless package management and version upgrades (never have to download more ISOs for each upgrade).

So there you have it. Ubuntu is to Debian as Fedora is to Red Hat, with some added commercial backing and free software philosophy.

Edited by goofrider

id say ubuntu, my im a heavy multimedia user, and so far it really hasnt been doing that well for getting my media to work correctly. so im thinking of switching to fedora core 3, if theres a way to not use kde and gnome instead (is there?)

id say ubuntu, my im a heavy multimedia user, and so far it really hasnt been doing that well for getting my media to work correctly. so im thinking of switching to fedora core 3, if theres a way to not use kde and gnome instead (is there?)

585764276[/snapback]

Yes, and gnome is the default WM in FC3 afaik. I dont think you'll get a better multimedia experience using FC3 either. Whats wrong with Ubuntu, or what cant you get working?

sweet, might make the switch to fc3 (whats afaik) then. Ubuntu is okay, but when i try to get mp3s to work on say amarok or rhythm box, no luck

( i get that /dev/dsp or something like that is busy or some other error). they work on totem, but one a song at a time, and i wanna switch on the fly from a program. Speaking of totem, when i try to watch a movie from it, it lags horribly. Also after a while or so ill get some failed sequences in my boot (dual boot with winxp), dont really know the reason. Might be how i mounted my ntfs partition, help in the link right here if you can

msg43 saying:

"....... it like fedora 3 w/out the bs (mp3,etc...) and it has a bunch of nifty features that are ...."

^ afaik = as far as i know

And i think msg43 was reffering to the licensing issue with mp3's which now affects Ubuntu as well as Fedora/Red Hat. After reading his post I think he is promoting Ubuntu over FC3...

585765401[/snapback]

The MP3 licensing also affects SUSE now. Thank you, Software Patents. :rolleyes:

I am a FC user, but it is possible that you will run into the same problems as you did in Ubuntu. Possible, also, that things will be easier. Sometimes a different approach is what it takes to 'click'. If there was a perfect distro for everyone, then everyone would use it, no? ;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • AMD RX 9070 GRE AI, Blender benchmarks vs 9070 XT, 7800XT, Nvidia RTX 5070, 4070 by Sayan Sen Earlier this week, we shared the first part of our review of AMD's new RX 9070 GRE. It was about the gaming performance of the GPU, and we gave it an 8 out of 10. As a follow-up, similar to how we did with the 9070 XT and non-XT, we are doing a dedicated productivity review for the RX 9070 GRE as well, where we compare it against the 9070 XT, 9070, 7800 XT, as well as Nvidia's 5070 and 4070. This will include AI, rendering, compute, and more benchmarks. AI performance, especially, is a very important metric in today's world, and AMD also promised big improvements thanks to its underlying architectural improvements. We will be pitching it against the data we already have for the RX 9070, and RX 9070 XT, but also the Nvidia 5070 FE, MSI GeForce RTX 4070 VENTUS 2X 12G, and Gigabyte Radeon RX 7800 XT GAMING OC 16G as they are in a similar price class, but also because we do not have a comparable 5060 Ti card lying around here that we can compare it against. Before we get underway, this is a collaboration between Sayan Sen and Steven Parker, who lent me his test bed. Also, there was no editorial input from AMD. First up, the specs of the RX 9070, 9070 XT, and 9070 GRE, which were given to us by AMD: Radeon RX 9070 GRE Radeon RX 9070 Radeon RX 9070 XT Boost Clock: Game Clock: up to 2.79GHz up to 2.20GHz up to 2.52GHz up to 2.07GHz up to 2.97GHz up to 2.40GHz Stream Processors 3,072 (48 CU) 3,584 (56 CU) 4,096 (64 CU) Ray Accelerator 48 56 64 AI Accelerator 96 112 128 ROPs 96 128 Texture Mapping Units 192 224 256 Memory 12 GB GDDR6, 18Gbps Clock, 192-bit Bus 432 GB/s 16 GB GDDR6, 20Gbps Clock, 256-bit Bus Effective Memory Bandwidth: 640 GB/s Infinity Cache 48 MB (3rd Gen) 64 MB (3rd Gen) Card Bus PCI-E 5.0 X16 Output 2x HDMI 2.1b 2x DisplayPort 2.1a Power consumption 220W 304W Recommended PSU 650W 750W Slot width 2x 3x Price (SEP) $549 $599 As you can see from the specs above, it is less than the standard RX 9070 in every way that counts, except for slightly higher Boost and Game clock speed. Design Moving on, the RX 9070 GRE we were given is an XFX Swift triple-fan, dual-slot design with two 8-pin connectors. At 30cm (self-measured), it will fit in most systems easily. There is no RGB either. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE by XFX from all angles. Test system Our test system consists of the following: Lian Li O11 Dynamic Mini V2 Flow (Amazon|Newegg) ASUS Z890 ProArt Creator WiFi (Amazon|Newegg) Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus (Amazon|Newegg) Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet - 44x37 (Amazon|Newegg) 2x 16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB (7200 MT/s in XMP) (Amazon|Newegg) Sabrent Rocket4 Plus 2TB SSD (Amazon) Windows 11 25H2 (Build 26200.8246) AMD shared a press driver based on the recently released Adrenaline 26.5.2 that we were required to use. We now move on to our benchmarks. First up, we have Geekbench AI running on ONNX. For some reason, the 9070 GRE does exceptionally well here in both half-precision (FP16) and single-precision (FP32). It manages to beat the RTX 5070 and RX 9070 non-XT, and is only behind the 9070 XT. Since Geekbench runs in short bursts instead of continuously hammering the graphics card, it seems the GRE's faster boost clocks are helping here. Next up, we move to the UL Procyon AI test suite, starting with the image generation benchmark. We chose the Stable Diffusion XL FP16 test since it is the most intense workload available on Procyon. The Nvidia cards do very well here, as even the 4070 out-muscles AMD's best fairy easily. The positive thing about the GRE is that it gets quite close to the 9070 non-XT in this test; this indicates that the VRAM does not play a very big role here, as SD XL relies on float16 (FP16). So this is something to keep in mind again. If you wish to work with float32 AI workloads, graphics cards with larger than 12 GB buffers would likely emerge as victors. Regardless, the gains are still massive on AMD's 9000 series compared to the 7000 series. Following image generation, we move to the text generation benchmark. This is one test where the 9070 GRE struggled, quite a lot. It seems that the 12 GB VRAM and lower memory bandwidth of the new Radeon 9070 GRE are hurting it quite a bit; the split is massive, especially in a test like Llama2, which packs 13 billion parameters. As such, in all the tests, the 9070 GRE is the slowest of the lot. Next, we tried Blender, and here the AMD GPUs were beaten by Nvidia. Rendering is something the Green team has always had a lead over the Red side, and it has not changed so far. On the positive side, though, the 9070 GRE shows significantly better results than the 7800 XT, which means AMD is on the right path. Catching up to Nvidia, though, will require a lot more effort. And we hope HIP and ROCm can keep improving. Wrapping up AI testing, we measured OpenCL throughput in the Geekbench compute benchmark. The RX 9070 GRE alongside the 9070 did not fare well here at all, even falling behind the 7800 XT. Interestingly, even the RTX 5070 could not beat the 4070 on OpenCL, so perhaps this suggests that OpenCL optimization may not have been a priority for either AMD or Nvidia in the modern era. Conclusion We reached the end of our productivity performance review of the 9070 GRE, and we have to say it's a mixed bag. Unlike the 9070 and 9070 XT, the GRE excels in some areas while losing ground fairly easily in others. Similar to how it happened in gaming, any time the card's memory subsystem gets hammered, it tends to fall behind the others. This was the case with text generation, wherein we saw the VRAM sometimes hit its maximum available 12 GB of usage with larger model sizes. So what do we make of the RX 9070 as a productivity hardware? It can certainly be used, but you have to know it has its limitations. For those looking for a GPU that can deal with more, AMD recently unveiled the Radeon AI PRO R9700, which is essentially a 32 GB refresh of the 9070 XT with some additional workstation-based optimizations. On a similar note, the new Ryzen AI Halo platform is something you can consider if you want to set up a local AI processing station. Considering everything, we rate AMD's Radeon RX 9070 GRE a 7.5 out of 10 for its productivity performance. Price is less of a factor for those looking at productivity cases compared to those considering the GPU for gaming, and as such, we felt it did quite decently on many occasions and can be handy if you need a 12 GB GPU and, for some reason, don't want to get Nvidia. Purchase links: RX 9070 / XT / GRE (Amazon US) As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Does anyone here know if these updates are integrated into the UUP dump isos?
    • Motrix Next 3.9.4 by Razvan Serea Motrix Next is a modern, open-source cross-platform download manager built as the official next-generation successor to the original Motrix project. It has been completely rewritten using Tauri 2, Vue 3, TypeScript, and Rust, while still relying on the powerful Aria2 download engine for high-speed multi-protocol transfers. The app supports HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, BitTorrent, ED2K and magnet links, offering advanced features like multi-connection acceleration, task scheduling, bandwidth control, and batch download management. With a significantly reduced install size (around 20MB), it focuses on being lightweight, fast, and resource-efficient compared to traditional Electron-based download tools. Designed for Windows, macOS, and Linux, Motrix Next delivers a clean, modern UI inspired by Material Design 3 principles, with smooth animations and a minimal workflow. It improves usability through better download organization, system tray integration, and enhanced torrent handling including selective file downloads and tracker management. Motrix Next features: Multi-protocol downloads — HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, Magnet, .torrent, ED2K, and Metalink tasks BitTorrent — Selective file download, DHT, peer exchange, encryption controls, metadata caching, GeoIP peer flags, and tracker probing Browser extension integration — Embedded Extension API with independent authentication, download confirmation, smart auto-submit, filename hints, referer/cookie forwarding, and real-time controls (Chrome Web Store · Edge Add-ons) Safe filename handling — Content-Disposition, RFC 2047, non-UTF-8, percent-encoded, and extensionless URL resolution with path traversal sanitization Download organization — Favorite and recent folders, optional file-type categorization, stale-record cleanup, and completed history backed by SQLite Concurrent downloads — Independent controls for active tasks, HTTP connections per server, segments per file, and BT peer limits Speed control — Global and per-task upload/download limits with day-of-week and time-of-day scheduling System integration — Tray operation, optional tray speed display, macOS Dock badge/progress, protocol handlers for magnet://, thunder://, and motrixnext:// Lightweight mode — Destroys the WebView on minimize-to-tray while Rust keeps the engine, task monitor, notifications, history, and extension routing alive Notifications and power options — Native task start/complete/failure notifications, keep-awake during downloads, and optional shutdown after completion Network controls — Scoped proxy support for downloads, app updates, and tracker updates, plus system proxy detection Auto-update channels — Stable, Beta, and Latest Across Channels policies with separate download and install phases Diagnostics — Structured logs, exportable diagnostic ZIPs, database integrity checks, automatic DB rebuild, and Linux GPU rendering fallback Personalization — Light/dark/system theme, 10 color schemes, 26 languages, and first-launch system language detection Motrix Next 3.9.4 changelog: Motrix Next 3.9.4 promotes the 3.9.4 beta cycle to stable. This release refreshes bundled engine binaries, improves task detail readability and copy actions, expands link handling for magnet and ED2K workflows, polishes responsive navigation and text wrapping, updates browser extension documentation, and refines network preference controls. New Features Task Detail copy actions — Added copyable values for task metadata and reusable render functions for long text fields. Magnet and ED2K lifecycle support — Added task lifecycle handling for magnet and ED2K links. History cleanup for deleted tasks — Deleted tasks can now remove matching history records. User-Agent management — Added user-agent management and improved related network preference controls. Browser extension documentation — Added the Firefox Add-ons link for the Motrix Next extension. Improvements Engine binaries — Updated bundled binaries for supported architectures. Task Detail readability — Long task names, URLs, tracker values, and copyable metadata now render more clearly. Deletion messaging — Refined localized task deletion text for clarity and consistency. Text wrapping — Improved URI input wrapping and task name multiline display. Navigation layout — Improved sub-navigation responsiveness. Disk allocation default — Changed the default file allocation method to trunc. Proxy controls — Improved proxy button styling in network preferences. Download: Motrix Next 64-bit | ARM64 | macOS ~20.0 MB (Open Source) Links: Website | macOS / Linux | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NVIDIA officially supports Ubuntu, as linked above with the GeForce NOW Hands on I did in collaboration with Paul Hill.
    • TO be clear I am not running linux today, however I keep thinking about it. And I want to make sure there are minimal obstacles if I decide to make that switch in the coming months.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Mark Spruce earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      479
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      248
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      69
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!