General discussion

Locked

Best versus worst Linux distro

By SWLChris ·
I have replied to a few discussions, so now I will create one myself.
I would like the opinions of those familiar with Linux to rate their experience with various distributions. It could be the best or the worst.
If the best how come? Was it ease of install? Maintenence of the os? Included programs?
If it was the worst what happened to make that decision ? I'm interested in whatever might be said.
By the way , running a quad-os system here, so would be neat to see which distros you have tried that I haven't. I'm always up for checking out something new.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The easiest

by luther_world In reply to Best versus worst Linux d ...

for me to install was Mandrake, then Fedora, and Debian being the most difficult. I tried installing a couple other distros but could not get very far, maybe due to my general ignorance regarding linux or the fact that some of the hardware I was using was pretty old. As far as practicalities of any of the distros, I have only played around on these. I probably installed too many optional packages making the whole thing top-heavy and dragging down my resources.

Collapse -

What's your focus

by HiwayPilot In reply to The easiest

Was you building a server or a desktop? A lot of people are looking for easy desktops. PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu and D.S.L. are easy to install and great on older hardware. Fedora and Debian tend to be a little heavy when you load them up for desktop but can't be beat for a streamlined server.

Collapse -

Desktop dabbler

by mandops In reply to What's your focus

As a dabbler with Linux (looking for a good but easily installed distribution to replace Windows), I've tried Red Hat, Caldera, Mandrake 8 & 9, Novell Linux and a few others. Had most success with Mandrake/Mandriva but recently installed PCLinuxos and impressed with ease of installation and updating. It could do with a few more heavyweight packages as supplied (such as OpenOffice) but very usable straight from the off. Now just need an easily installed Linux for server use, as would like a new e-mail server and a file server as good as Novell Netware. Any good suggestions?

Collapse -

depends

by apotheon In reply to Desktop dabbler

If you don't want to have to learn anything about what you're doing, Fedora and OpenSUSE should provide you with simple installs with preinstalled GUI-configurable mailserver and fileserver capabilities.

If you want something that is better suited for server use, though, you're going to have to learn something about the tools you're using. That being the case, I'd recommend Debian. There are still GUI configuration options available, but some of them you'll have to install yourself ? and, frankly, a server-only system shouldn't have any GUI installed at all, unless it's an application server or something along those lines.

Collapse -

Question

by rkuhn In reply to depends

Why shouldn't a server install include any GUI's?

Are you telling me that a server install should be command line only?

The whole point to today's modern OS'es and computer systems is to bring the power, efficiencies, automation, etc to the everyday user, company, etc.

Do you really think Linux or any OS for that matter, will ever become widely used if one must do everything in the command line?

That is obsurd!

Collapse -

Obsurd

by noyoki In reply to Question

> "That is obsurd!"

No, them's fightin' words, that's what that is!

Collapse -

server setup 101 for the clueless

by apotheon In reply to Question

A server install shouldn't include a GUI because it's a waste of system resources. Servers don't exist to provide a user interface at the console so you can browse your favorite pr0n sites. They exist to serve data and functionality to client systems.

Would you install dozens of residential cabins of the sort found on a luxury liner cruise ship on an oil tanker? Would you expand the size of an F-117 fighter/bomber so you could put first-class airliner seats in the fuselage? Would you outfit a dry goods warehouse with well-apointed dining room, library, and bedrooms? The answer to all those questions should be exactly the same as your answer to the following question, and for the same reasons:
Would you install a GUI on a fileserver?

Yes, a server install (in almost all cases) should be command line only. ****, you should be running most servers headless and admin them only from a remote system. I'm guessing by your lack of understanding of simple server management concepts like this that you don't do much network administration.

You have the same bias pretty much every other Windows-bred tunnel-vision CLIphobe has toward a textual user interface. The CLI isn't inferior to the GUI: it's just differently useful, more useful for different things than the GUI.

To make a long story short:
"Are you telling me that a server install should be command line only?"
Well, duh. I thought everyone knew that.

What the **** is "obsurd"? Is that an attempt to phonetically spell the word "absurd"? Don't try to talk authoritatively on subjects about which you know so little. Whether it involves rattling on about a CLI or mangling English words, if you don't know how to use it you shouldn't go around pretending to know something about it.

Collapse -

You're the Clueless One

by rkuhn In reply to server setup 101 for the ...

With GUI's, a minimal amount grant it, I can hire someone and pay them substantially less than hiring an egotistcal, ******* like you that thinks he knows everything.

GUI's were created to dumb down the system, grant it. But not all systems are administered by God like asses like you.

My goal isn't to hire someone that knows a kernel. My goals are to hire people to make $ for the company.

I have never surfed porn on a server. Your analogies of boats and airplanes only show your true mental age and not your biological age.

My job is probably 70% net admin.

Obsured was a typo, get over it.

Just one last thing to say. When Linux gets beyond a mere techno geek fascination and truly makes success in ALL aspects of an organization, let me know.

I have patience. I can wait another 10 years. But in 10 years, we'll just be talking about the next lastest and greatest threat to MS.

That is, if the big boys don't eventually just buyout the small fries...look at Oracle.

Oh, and yes, there will always be someone supporting open source just so they can get a cheap shot at MS.

For example, Oracle. They will make purchase after purchase of open source just to hurt MS by turning the product into a real product.

I have given you just about every point you have about Linux. Speed, reliablity, security, etc.

But one thing that you and your like will always miss...the power of $$$. MS will be on top for a long time, for good or evil.

Here's your recipe for success....

Don't give Linux away for free, charge something. Something, less than MS, just so you can make marketing campaigns, educate people, pay staff, and make fancy Super Bowl commercials (kidding).

But really, do you think for a second that anything that is free will ever break the back of the 100% all American, free market, open competition, competitive world of the economy today?

You're a dreamer...get over it.

Collapse -

Nuh-uh, YOU are! Neener neener.

by apotheon In reply to server setup 101 for the ...

"With GUI's, a minimal amount grant it, I can hire someone and pay them substantially less than hiring an egotistcal, ******* like you that thinks he knows everything."
I don't think I know everything. Far from it. I just know that I know more about running a fileserver than someone that thinks it should have a GUI running on it. That guy you'd hire for less to run a server by GUI because he doesn't know what he's doing well enough to properly secure the thing and tune it for the task at hand is going to end up costing you more on the back end in downtime, security failures, and poor implementation decisions.

"My goal isn't to hire someone that knows a kernel. My goals are to hire people to make $ for the company."
That's why you should hire someone that knows how to properly manage a network. Plugging a keyboard, mouse, and monitor into every server on the network because you don't know how to manage it by SSH isn't going to make a whole lot of money for the company.

"Your analogies of boats and airplanes only show your true mental age and not your biological age."
Right, 'cause obviously everyone who has ever made an analogy relating to aircraft and oil tankers is an immature brat. You're making some real logical points there. Keep up the good work.

"Just one last thing to say. When Linux gets beyond a mere techno geek fascination and truly makes success in ALL aspects of an organization, let me know."
Okay. I'm letting you know.

"I have given you just about every point you have about Linux. Speed, reliablity, security, etc."
You have an interesting habit of conceding something that's not central to a given topic while attacking Linux on eight other fronts, then turning around and choosing a different point to concede in another discussion while attacking it on the same point you conceded last time. Your credibility is pretty thin here.

"But really, do you think for a second that anything that is free will ever break the back of the 100% all American, free market, open competition, competitive world of the economy today?"
Anticompetitive practices perpetrated by a multiply convicted monopolist isn't "free market" and "open competition". You're way out in left field.

I'm not just a dreamer. I'm a businessman and an IT professional.

Collapse -

Apo, you have it all wrong

by jmgarvin In reply to server setup 101 for the ...

"Obsurd" is a rare species of moron, that, despite its total lack of brain funtion, has managed to propogate and still lives with us today!

Related Discussions

Related Forums