Definitive: Which Linux Distro? (2011)

[grueeue]

Used to be a redhat user but i've switched over to ubuntu and even though it's fast and all, i'll probably end up trying out arch.

[Flashlite]

Clearly, my knowledge of Linux distributions is lacking. :pinch:

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Kubuntu all the way. It's just Ubuntu with KDE and a different bootscreen, hovever, KDE is VERY user-friendly. Very pleased that Ubuntu has the highest votes. By the way, what is Mythbuntu and Blackbuntu?

[Silverskull]

Uhh not quite with you here? Ubuntu is Debian based so not really sure what you are trying to say??

Mint is based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian. Mint Debian Edition is based directly on Debian.

Basically doesn't have some of the changes Ubuntu's made. And it's a rolling release.

[Reacon]

Arch, definitely. Get exactly the setup you want with minimal fuss. Sort of like Linux-From-Scratch... without the self-induced brain aneurysm. Always up to date, everything is pure vanilla from the source without third party butchery, easy to configure and maintain, and nobody picking what you should be running for you.

I couldn't have put it better myself!

To anyone slightly afraid of installing: Install your video card drivers first, then X (xorg), then gnome (gdm). "pacman -h" should get you on the right track.

It's really simple if you have the correct package names!

[Growled Member]

I've changed my mind and changed my vote since this first came out. I was all into Mint then. Since then I have reinstalled Ubuntu 10.10. It terms of customization it seems miles ahead of Mint. It also doesn't have annoyances (fortune cookies in terminal and can not upgrade with Synaptic) that really stands out. I might still offer Mint to a newcomer to Linux because of it's ease of use but for me Ubuntu stands out as the best Linux base out there right now.

[king soloman]

linux ubuntu is good, but ubuntu ultimate edition has got to be the best of all, alongside with sabayon, if your more familiar with gentoo, i loved ubuntu but ultimate edition is just way more advanced then windows will ever be, but you have to have at least 2 gigs of ram to benefit from its goodies.....

[Jesus Balbastro]

I was reluctant to choose either Fedora and ubuntu just because they left me a little wanting more. And From what i see they are very friendly. i choose puppy for it's portability but i still want to try Mint but i've been having a hard time getting it to boot.

[daniel0085]

This article might help you to decide what is the best linux distro for you

[ZekeComa]

I vote Gentoo. Simply because it's far more updated and bleeding edge then any other distro and it's easier for me as a Qt developer. Which ArchLinux lacks. I can't stand Ubuntu/Debian because they are too outdated when it is released and I honestly don't feel like reinstalling everytime a new version comes out. I know I can stay at the one I'm on but I want bleeding edge which none of the Ubuntu's distros proves for me.

[Leonick]

I can't stand Ubuntu/Debian because they are too outdated when it is released and I honestly don't feel like reinstalling everytime a new version comes out.

You don't have to reinstall when a new version of Ubuntu comes out, the Update-Manager will offer you to update to the newest version and if you run it with the -d switch it'll even update to beta releases which should be interesting for someone who wants to be on the edge :p

[YounGMessiah]

What do yall think of the openSUSe distro?? I was thinking of using that instead of Ubuntu.

[Flawed]

For me it's a toss up between Ubuntu and Gentoo. Ubuntu is just so easy going it's a real delight to use whether you're a professional programmer or complete beginner. Gentoo can be very hardcore if you do a tool chain compile install, but once you get it up and running, every part of it can be customised to the heart's content, from selecting only the kernel modules your hardware needs, to a highly personal desktop environment or frame buffer terminal interface. It arguably has the best package manager of all distros - portage. But again, it's not for the faint of heart. If you're a programmer though, it's a piece of cake :D

[Yorak]

There is nothing really "wrong" with Ubuntu and its derivatives. It has come a long way in recent years and will continue to grow. I was increasingly worried about the new Unity interface (not really worried, but concerned nothing would flow together thoroughly). In the first beta I was very impressed. Already, there were plenty of bugs ironed out. Beta 2 is set to release later today, and I look forward to it. I surely appreciate and respect Canonical as Linux would not be where it is today without them.

With that said, my distribution of choice is Arch Linux. As everyone else has already said, the rolling release model is great. Users from other distributions may say that bleeding edge is not always a good thing, that you are prone to new bugs. Honestly, with Arch, your system is what you make of it. I am a simple guy, I like a standard Openbox WM with a Tint2 panel. The best part of Arch is their documentation. It is the most thorough and well put together Wiki that I have ever seen. What questions cannot be found on there can be asked on the forum. Members there are very generous, as long as you put forth effort and do not ask them to hold your hand.

When it comes to server software, I recommend CentOS. It is a very solid Enterprise Linux Distribution. They go with what works, a very stable and time-proven system.

[YounGMessiah]

If I were to get Arch Linux, which would be my best option? i686 CPU | x86-64 CPU | Dual Architecture

I got an Intel Core i5 M 480 - 4GB ram..

[Jen Smith]

What do yall think of the openSUSe distro?? I was thinking of using that instead of Ubuntu.

Actually not bad for a complete-out-of-the-box distro. Personally I hate Yast (and RPM's in general) with a passion though, but that's just my opinion. Other than that it felt like a well rounded setup, both their KDE and Gnome flavors. There's a live CD available to get a feel for it, like many other distros. Give it a spin, only thing you got to lose is a spare disc.

If I were to get Arch Linux, which would be my best option? i686 CPU | x86-64 CPU | Dual Architecture

I got an Intel Core i5 M 480 - 4GB ram..

Again, just my opinion. With "only" 4GB, I'd personally go with the 686 build. Less potential issues with some software.

[YounGMessiah]

Thank ya and yeah imma try them first live, before I install :).

[Growled Member]

What do yall think of the openSUSe distro?? I was thinking of using that instead of Ubuntu.

It's a bit harder than Ubuntu. Ubuntu will spoil you if you're not careful. Also, openSuse is a bit slower and Yast is just terrible to work with. I don't much care for it myself. It seems more for corporate desktops.

[Flawed]

Actually not bad for a complete-out-of-the-box distro. Personally I hate Yast (and RPM's in general) with a passion though, but that's just my opinion. Other than that it felt like a well rounded setup, both their KDE and Gnome flavors. There's a live CD available to get a feel for it, like many other distros. Give it a spin, only thing you got to lose is a spare disc.

Or you can just put it on a usb pen drive using unetbootin's automatic download/install functionality. It's certainly quicker and cheaper than messing around with discs.

[Shaun N.]

Install Gentoo!

*Kicks in face*

Now you can install a bandage on your face!

[Miuku.]

Or you can just put it on a usb pen drive using unetbootin's automatic download/install functionality. It's certainly quicker and cheaper than messing around with discs.

You shouldn't use unetbootin nor do you have any need for it when using openSUSE's LiveCDs as they are out of the box hybrid .iso, just use the SUSE Studio Image Writer or simply write the images as they are to a USB stick.

As for those preaching about the "greatness" of Ubuntu, let me ask you this; how many contributions to kernel, applications or Linux in general can you name that came from Canonical? I wish I could name one but I can't.

[wizzywizard]

Arch, definitely. Get exactly the setup you want with minimal fuss. Sort of like Linux-From-Scratch... without the self-induced brain aneurysm. Always up to date, everything is pure vanilla from the source without third party butchery, easy to configure and maintain, and nobody picking what you should be running for you.

Archlinux is the way for me.. using it for about a year now and never looked back.

[Flawed]

You shouldn't use unetbootin nor do you have any need for it when using openSUSE's LiveCDs as they are out of the box hybrid .iso, just use the SUSE Studio Image Writer or simply write the images as they are to a USB stick.

Well I only mentioned unetbootin because of its convenience. But of course, if you have a disk image iso/img already, then a dd if=image of=/dev/sdd bs=1M would work fine too.

As for those preaching about the "greatness" of Ubuntu, let me ask you this; how many contributions to kernel, applications or Linux in general can you name that came from Canonical? I wish I could name one but I can't.

Huh? Where did that come from? I was only recommending an alternate installation method, sheesh! As far as the contributions of Canonical are concerned, I can think of quite a few. But I'm not here to defend specific companies. As long as we, as users, benefit from the user friendliness of Ubuntu, what's the problem?

[Jen Smith]

As far as the contributions of Canonical are concerned, I can think of quite a few. But I'm not here to defend specific companies. As long as we, as users, benefit from the user friendliness of Ubuntu, what's the problem?

Not a big fan of Ubuntu myself, but I'd have to agree with that, they did come up with a few interesting bits of their own that go beyond a theme and font. Unity (love it or hate it), NotifyOSD is actually rather nice, etc etc, plus don't forget the on-line services they offer as well.

[Miuku.]

As long as we, as users, benefit from the user friendliness of Ubuntu, what's the problem?

Perhaps because when you look at the whole, they contribute absolutely nothing other than hype. I have more components contributed by Apple on my Linux system than from Canonical - I'd say that speaks volumes.

And if you're wondering why it bothers me - it bothers me because overhyping Canonical and Ubuntu leaves out the real contributors, the people who actually do something other than just package things. Ubuntu this, Ubuntu that and then when you look at the actual sources you find Redhat, Novell, IBM and various other contributors but practically never anything Canonical.

[ipeters61]

If you asked me a few years ago, I would have said SUSE. If you asked me last year, Ubuntu. But I'm saying Debian these days. I've never used an operating system more reliable, nor have used one that is speedier.