What flavor are you using?

[DiscipleDOC]

I am now using Kunbuntu! I love it! It is much easier to use than knoppix!:thumbdwn:

I will post once I've got it installed on my hd.

[grey_1]

Currently giving DSL a whirl. Got tired of Ubuntu glitches.

[evilghost]

Debian and actually looking at taking the time to convert the server to either Debian or CentOS from Ubuntu. I'm not to thrilled with Ubuntu except for it's great value as a transitional OS easing migration from Win32 to Linux.

[DiscipleDOC]

Oh? What type of glitches?

And I'm typing this from Kunbuntu btw. ;)

[breathemetal]

Vista & Linux get along well, see!
;)

http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Ce-impact-va-avea-Windows-Vista-asupra-Linux-2.jpg

[grey_1]

Oh? What type of glitches?

And I'm typing this from Kunbuntu btw. ;)
Constant problems with graphical corruption and/or freezes were the worst. There didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, nor was the length of time til it happened always constant. My last install lasted a month or so before I had to go back to no X to repair it.

Sometimes it was when copying large files, other times just opening a browser. Always thought it was just me configuring something wrong til I started searching for better fixes.

[Sazar]

Ubuntu 7.04, Feisty Fawn.

Well, it's on my other HDD, haven't used it in a coupla months.

[six_storm]

I've been using Ubuntu 7.04. KDE is ok, I just get sick of everything starting with a K lol. Plus, KDE is a little more hardware extensive than Gnome. I'm lovin Linux though.

[evilghost]

I've been using Ubuntu 7.04. KDE is ok, I just get sick of everything starting with a K lol. Plus, KDE is a little more hardware extensive than Gnome. I'm lovin Linux though.

iKnow, after iHearing about Apple and all their iSoftware I get annoyed as well. iTunes, iMovie, iPorn, iPod, iPhone, iMac, iFrontalHeadTramua, etc.

[Fackamato]

Archlinux ( http://www.archlinux.org )

Very fast, optimized, current and stable distribution. :)


I love the packaging system too! And ABS. ;>

[evilghost]

Archlinux ( http://www.archlinux.org )

Very fast, optimized, current and stable distribution. :)


I love the packaging system too! And ABS. ;>

This sounds very cool, tell me more about it. From what I understand their package management system uses 'pacman', and the packages appear as .tar.gz, is this similar to Gentoo's portage system? Is this a binary distribution or one compiled from source code?

[ViN86]

Slackware. fast and straightforward. perfect for a no nonsense linux experience.

ghost, if youre doing a lot of hosting, i strongly suggest slackware.

[DiscipleDOC]

Slackware. fast and straightforward. perfect for a no nonsense linux experience.

ghost, if youre doing a lot of hosting, i strongly suggest slackware.

I got a friend that uses Slackware. He loves it!

[supra]

Slackware. fast and straightforward. perfect for a no nonsense linux experience.


QFT

been using it since 8.0 luv it.

[Fackamato]

This sounds very cool, tell me more about it. From what I understand their package management system uses 'pacman', and the packages appear as .tar.gz, is this similar to Gentoo's portage system? Is this a binary distribution or one compiled from source code?

It's a binary distribution. Yep, pacman is the package manager, and packages come in .tar.gz format.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_vs_Others

Because Arch distributes binary, it is much less time-consuming than Gentoo. Gentoo has more packages and lets you choose the exact version of a package you want to install. Arch allows both binary- and source-based distribution. PKGBUILDs are easier to create than ebuilds. Gentoo is more portable out of the box as packages will get compiled to your specific architecture, whereas Arch is for i686 and x86-64 only (although an i586 user-based spin-off project is underway). There is no documented proof that Gentoo is any faster than Arch.

Slackware and Arch are both 'simple' distributions. Both use BSD-style init scripts. Arch supplies a much more robust package management system in pacman which, unlike Slackware's standard tools, allows simple automatic system upgrades. Slackware is seen as more conservative in its release cycle, preferring proven stable packages. Arch is much more 'bleeding edge' in this respect. Arch is i686-only whereas Slackware can run on i486 systems. Arch is a very good system for Slack users who want more robust package management or more current packages.

However, the Slackware project states on its General Info page that Slackware "uses -mcpu=i686 optimization for best performance on i686-class machines like the P3, P4, and Duron/Athlon", so it's possible that both are equally well-optimized.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rc.conf <- Main system settings file.

Give it a try! http://archlinux.org/news/337/

[six_storm]

iKnow, after iHearing about Apple and all their iSoftware I get annoyed as well. iTunes, iMovie, iPorn, iPod, iPhone, iMac, iFrontalHeadTramua, etc.

I know! Who doesn't love iPorn? :D

[breathemetal]

IPORN FTW!!!!

http://www.iporn.wastednetwork.com/

[wnd]

Vanilla. Vanilla 64-bit Debian GNU/Linux unstable on my workstation back home. And no, "vanilla" is /not/ part of the name. Debian stable on my servers and at work.

[six_storm]

What's the difference between Ubuntu and Debian 4.0?

[wnd]

Coming from someone who only uses Ubuntu Live-DVD as a rescue media:

Ubuntu is essentially Debian testing/unstable with less worry about non-free packages. Unlike Debian, Ubuntu promotes Gnome as desktop (Kubuntu goes with KDE, and Xubuntu with Xfce). Ubuntu tends to comes with more recent versions of Gnome and GTK than Debian, but seems to lag behind with other packages [1][2] (at least when compared to Debian unstable). Don't get me wrong, Debian unstable is hardly worth its name, but every "aptitude dist-upgrade" comes with slight possibility that not everything goes smoothly. I think it was said somewhere that Ubuntu and Debian testing have almost the same versions included.

I think Ubuntu also provides better out-of-the-box support for hardware, partly because of non-free packages, partly because they are part of the default installation and thus already configured to work with most set ups.

In short, I'd recommend Ubuntu to everyone, and Debian to people who know what they want and how to get it.

[1] Package version comparison graph (http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/binary-versiondiff.jpg)
[2] Package version comparison (http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/binary-versiondiff.html) (very big HTML table)

[lightman]

Several versions of Fedora here, ranging from 3 (soon to be retired as soon as I start going to the office again, still recovering from the accident) to 7. I'm gonna install 8beta1 and give it a try on the spare hd here at home in the next few days, though.

[JOPS]

Debian sid on primary machines and HTPC at home and stable on personal server since 1997. Switched to Debian completely in 2000, from AmigaOS. Never depended on Windows, I play Windows games with Wine and Amiga games with E-UAE. :)

At work we've used Debian stable on servers and routers and stable or sid on workstations since 2002 (we have Windows machines too).

For everything we use that is not in the main distribution I build our own native DEB's and put them in a private repository. So it's easy to maintain and upgrade our customized systems. I do the same for personal stuff at home, e.g. for games, emulators and apps. Haven't seen any other distro that has better tools for it.

[curaga]

My own. Besides being blazingly fast like Gentoo (fully optimized), it also is customized exactly to my taste and has nothing vain (=no wasted space).

I also like DSL and keep one around in a usb stick, and occasionally use Knoppix for rescue stuff..

PS. I have many (k)ubuntu cd's around to give for helping friends leave M$ behind. I personally don't like *buntu, but they are pretty much the easiest one coming from M$ can get

Ps 2: My server is running Debian Etch, but only because I wanted it up fast

[wnd]

My own. Besides being blazingly fast like Gentoo (fully optimized), it also is customized exactly to my taste and has nothing vain (=no wasted space).

I don't intend to start a flame war, but IMHO compiling everything (and stripping unwanted junk) yourself just isn't worth it. Not unless you're planning to run it on a very limited hardware. Virtually in every case gained performance is hardly noticable. I'm not sure what you mean by "customisation", but personally I'm quite pleased with standards-compliant Debian, and stock configuration files that you're free to edit to fit your environment.

[chunkey]

I don't want to start a flame war either, but: "optimizing" for space is vain.

C'mon, today's harddisks are big enough for more than "just" one operating system. :D