What is your preferred Linux "distro" for C++ development?

[Robert Hutchings]

Some people strongly prefer Slackware....

[Ian Collins]

Robert Hutchings wrote:
> Some people strongly prefer Slackware....
>

Others prefer something else.

There isn't any real difference when it comes to tools.

--
Ian Collins

[Mr Flibble]

Linus hates C++ though.

/Flibble

[JiiPee]

Yes and very strongly :). But it does not affect using C++ in linux.

[Mr Flibble]

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 12, 2014 1:13:25 PM UTC-5, Robert Hutchings wrote:
> Some people strongly prefer Slackware....

I like FreeBSD and PC-BSD.

http://freebsd.org
http://bsdnow.tv

Prior to using BSD I was using Arch Linux. I had a TCP
related problem on Linux that I was only able to resolve
by switching to BSD. I was reluctant to switch because
I'd been using Linux for quite a while, but now wish I
had switched earlier. Better late than never.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - So far G-d has helped us.
http://webEbenezer.net

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Brian,

What are a few things about FreeBSD which
made it more desirable than Linux, prompting
your comment about wishing you would've
switched sooner?

Does it use the same GNU tools? Like GNU/
Linux?

Please email if you'd like. I'm on my phone
or I would've emailed you.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Brian,
>
> What are a few things about FreeBSD which
> made it more desirable than Linux, prompting
> your comment about wishing you would've
> switched sooner?

BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
(kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
jails. I don't know much about either of those,
but expect to use Dtrace eventually.

>
> Does it use the same GNU tools? Like GNU/
> Linux?
>

I'm not sure. There are a lot of differences
between things like ps. On Linux I used:

ps -elf

On BSD it's:

ps aux
. That sort of thing comes up often. BSD users
have scripts that depend on the options being one
thing and Linux users likewise, but the options aren't
the same, so it makes it hard to compromise. People
who switch from Linux to BSD should be willing to
be hobbled by the switch. I'm getting by and hope
to eventually become more proficient.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[Ian Collins]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
> it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
> I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
> (kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
> have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
> things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
> jails. I don't know much about either of those,
> but expect to use Dtrace eventually.

If you are interested in dtrace (which any developer who wants to know
what is really happening on a live system should be), try its first
home: Solaris or Illumos.

--
Ian Collins

[David Brown]

On 13/10/14 00:31, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>> What are a few things about FreeBSD which
>> made it more desirable than Linux, prompting
>> your comment about wishing you would've
>> switched sooner?
>
> BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
> it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
> I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
> (kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
> have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
> things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
> jails. I don't know much about either of those,
> but expect to use Dtrace eventually.
>
>

I've never used Dtrace, but according to Wikipedia it has been available
on Linux since 2008. jails have also been in Linux for ages (and I
expect Solaris/Illumos has them too), and Linux has "super jails", or
containers.

There can be plenty of good reasons for preferring BSD, Solaris, Linux,
or any other particular OS. But it seems strange to single out features
that pretty much all *nix systems have.

From the very little I know about kqueue vs. epoll, BSD's kqueue is
considered a bit more powerful and a bit more efficient than epoll, but
also a bit more complex and it would have been difficult to implement in
the Linux kernel. However, it doesn't sound to me to be a particularly
big issue - the differences in performance are usually going to be quite
marginal, and certainly not enough to warrant changing OS.

Or am I missing something vital here?

[Ian Collins]

David Brown wrote:
> On 13/10/14 00:31, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> What are a few things about FreeBSD which
>>> made it more desirable than Linux, prompting
>>> your comment about wishing you would've
>>> switched sooner?
>>
>> BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
>> it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
>> I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
>> (kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
>> have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
>> things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
>> jails. I don't know much about either of those,
>> but expect to use Dtrace eventually.
>>
>>
>
> I've never used Dtrace, but according to Wikipedia it has been available
> on Linux since 2008.

Not fully - the kernel would have to be modified to add probes. The
only Linux with decent dtrace support is (surprise surprise) Oracle Linux.

> jails have also been in Linux for ages (and I
> expect Solaris/Illumos has them too), and Linux has "super jails", or
> containers.

Solaris/Illumos has zones (likened to jails on steroids), Linux
containers are a knock off of zones!

--
Ian Collins

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

But, there's a lot of difference when in comes to administration,
software updates/upgrades, availability of pre-build binary packages and
particularly the performance.

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman (http://bdheeman.BlogSpot.in/)
"Working together, works! The proof is GNU/Linux and F/LOSS Projects;
Do you too voluntarily work on or contribute to making any difference?"

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

On 10/13/2014 02:45 AM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 1:13:25 PM UTC-5, Robert Hutchings wrote:
>> Some people strongly prefer Slackware....
>
> I like FreeBSD and PC-BSD.
>
> http://freebsd.org
> http://bsdnow.tv
>
> Prior to using BSD I was using Arch Linux. I had a TCP
> related problem on Linux that I was only able to resolve
> by switching to BSD. I was reluctant to switch because
> I'd been using Linux for quite a while, but now wish I
> had switched earlier. Better late than never.

I switched back to Linux (desktop), because the *BSD these days have a
lot of problems with USB Storage devices and the drivers for many a WiFi
interfaces are still missing or FreeBSD people did not bother to port
some of these available in OpenBSD and, or NetBSD :(

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

Plz do check:
http://www.experchange.com/c-c-compiler-in-freebsd-t4396926
http://www.newswebreader.com/comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc/C-C++-compiler-in-FreeBSD/1235

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 12, 2014 6:38:56 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 13/10/14 00:31, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> >> Brian,
>
> >>
>
> >> What are a few things about FreeBSD which
>
> >> made it more desirable than Linux, prompting
>
> >> your comment about wishing you would've
>
> >> switched sooner?
>
> >
>
> > BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
>
> > it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
>
> > I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
>
> > (kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
>
> > have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
>
> > things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
>
> > jails. I don't know much about either of those,
>
> > but expect to use Dtrace eventually.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>

> From the very little I know about kqueue vs. epoll, BSD's kqueue is
> considered a bit more powerful and a bit more efficient than epoll, but
> also a bit more complex and it would have been difficult to implement in
> the Linux kernel. However, it doesn't sound to me to be a particularly
> big issue - the differences in performance are usually going to be quite
> marginal, and certainly not enough to warrant changing OS.
>

I haven't done a performance comparison between the two
versions of my back tier. I did notice the kqueue/BSD
version was about 10% smaller than the epoll/Linux version.
I believe the kqueue version is probably more efficient
than the epoll version as it requires fewer system calls.
I could do some performance testing, but as I said the
Linux version had a bug. I had to use something other
than Linux.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 12, 2014 6:46:25 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
> > On 13/10/14 00:31, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> >>> Brian,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> What are a few things about FreeBSD which
>
> >>> made it more desirable than Linux, prompting
>
> >>> your comment about wishing you would've
>
> >>> switched sooner?
>
> >>
>
> >> BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
>
> >> it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
>
> >> I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
>
> >> (kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
>
> >> have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
>
> >> things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
>
> >> jails. I don't know much about either of those,
>
> >> but expect to use Dtrace eventually.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > I've never used Dtrace, but according to Wikipedia it has been available
>
> > on Linux since 2008.
>
> Not fully - the kernel would have to be modified to add probes. The
> only Linux with decent dtrace support is (surprise surprise) Oracle Linux.
>

Thanks. I thought the Linux version was lacking in some way,
but would have had to check into it.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 12, 2014 7:22:50 PM UTC-5, Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> I switched back to Linux (desktop), because the *BSD these days have a
> lot of problems with USB Storage devices and the drivers for many a WiFi
> interfaces are still missing or FreeBSD people did not bother to port
> some of these available in OpenBSD and, or NetBSD :(
>

BSD is intended to be a strong platform for servers.
Support for wifi is probably lacking compared to Linux.

[David Brown]

On 13/10/14 01:46, Ian Collins wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 13/10/14 00:31, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>> Brian,
>>>>
>>>> What are a few things about FreeBSD which
>>>> made it more desirable than Linux, prompting
>>>> your comment about wishing you would've
>>>> switched sooner?
>>>
>>> BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
>>> it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
>>> I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
>>> (kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
>>> have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
>>> things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
>>> jails. I don't know much about either of those,
>>> but expect to use Dtrace eventually.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I've never used Dtrace, but according to Wikipedia it has been available
>> on Linux since 2008.
>
> Not fully - the kernel would have to be modified to add probes. The
> only Linux with decent dtrace support is (surprise surprise) Oracle Linux.
>

I can only speculate here or repeat what I have read on the net, so I
could be badly wrong. But I gather that there are a few other "probe"
mechanisms in Linux, such as kprobe, in addition to a long-running open
source dtrace tool and a new effort from Oracle to port dtrace to Linux.
I guess that if Oracle's work here is useful to many developers, it
will make its way into mainline Linux.

>> jails have also been in Linux for ages (and I
>> expect Solaris/Illumos has them too), and Linux has "super jails", or
>> containers.
>
> Solaris/Illumos has zones (likened to jails on steroids), Linux
> containers are a knock off of zones!
>

I had forgotten about Solaris jails. I think it is a little more
accurate to say that OpenVZ lightweight virtual machines are a knock off
of zones, and containers are the result of moving OpenVZ mechanisms into
the mainline kernel. I'm sure there are many similar mechanisms in most
*nix systems, and they all take inspiration from each other.

We use OpenVZ virtual machines on our servers at my company - they are
very useful.

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Mon, 2014-10-13, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 6:38:56 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

...

>> From the very little I know about kqueue vs. epoll, BSD's kqueue is
>> considered a bit more powerful and a bit more efficient than epoll, but
>> also a bit more complex and it would have been difficult to implement in
>> the Linux kernel. However, it doesn't sound to me to be a particularly
>> big issue - the differences in performance are usually going to be quite
>> marginal, and certainly not enough to warrant changing OS.
>>
>
> I haven't done a performance comparison between the two
> versions of my back tier. I did notice the kqueue/BSD
> version was about 10% smaller than the epoll/Linux version.
> I believe the kqueue version is probably more efficient
> than the epoll version as it requires fewer system calls.
> I could do some performance testing, but as I said the
> Linux version had a bug. I had to use something other
> than Linux.

A showstopper bug in TCP, epoll or more generally in the
kernel--userspace event mechanisms? Seems a bit unlikely -- can
I see the bug report?

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 13, 2014 1:28:38 PM UTC-5, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
>
> A showstopper bug in TCP, epoll or more generally in the
> kernel--userspace event mechanisms? Seems a bit unlikely -- can
> I see the bug report?
>

I didn't file a bug report, but I wrote about the problem
in a few places. The problem was easy to reproduce on
Fedora and Arch Linux. Here's what I wrote:


> I've been having a problem related to epoll_ctl() lately.
> I have a 3-tier system:
>
> 1. back tier (tcp server)
> 2. middle tier (udp server)
> 3. front tier
>
> The problem is happening in the back tier.
> If I kill the middle tier with a control-C and then restart it
> (before making any requests via the front tier), the socket
> descriptor (associated with the middle tier) in the back tier
> is 7. But If I first make some requests via the front tier,
> then kill the middle tier and restart it, the socket descriptor
> is 1.
>
> When the socket descriptor is 1, I get an EBADF on
> an epoll_ctl with an op of EPOLL_CTL_MOD.
> It's not on the first call to epoll_ctl that it fails, but the third
> call. My debugging shows that the epfd and fd are the same
> for all three of these calls.
>

To expand on that last part, the first two calls to epoll_ctl
would have been associated with logging in. The third call
was associated with a code generation request.

I'm willing to install a newer version of Linux and
test it on that. I suspect the problem is still there.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net

[Mel]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:13:02 -0500, Robert Hutchings
<rm.hut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some people strongly prefer Slackware....

I have Manjaro and Ubuntu installed at home but I compile and deploy
on Centos5/6

--
Press any key to continue or any other to quit

[Mel]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:15:37 -0700 (PDT), woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 1:13:25 PM UTC-5, Robert Hutchings
wrote:
> > Some people strongly prefer Slackware....


> I like FreeBSD and PC-BSD.


> http://freebsd.org
> http://bsdnow.tv


> Prior to using BSD I was using Arch Linux. I had a TCP
> related problem on Linux that I was only able to resolve
> by switching to BSD. I was reluctant to switch because
> I'd been using Linux for quite a while, but now wish I
> had switched earlier. Better late than never.

I have tried several BSD's and found them remarcably crude. For
server they are ok, but gui really lags behind... And hardware
support is nowhere near Linux.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 12, 2014 5:31:52 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
> it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
> I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
> (kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
> have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
> things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
> jails. I don't know much about either of those,
> but expect to use Dtrace eventually.
>

I've been trying Dtrace on BSD today. I have to
run dtrace from /boot/kernel for it to kind of work.
When I tried to get a user stack (ustack()) on the
C++ Middleware Writer, it lists a number of addresses
rather than function names. Is there something I
have to do to get the names?

And after I stop dtrace with control-c, the C++ Middleware
Writer hangs. I have to restart the back tier (cmw) to
get things working again. Is that to be expected?

[Ian Collins]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 5:31:52 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:34:11 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>> BSD is different from Linux in a lot of ways and
>> it's taking me a while to adjust to BSD. Now that
>> I find BSD to be better from a TCP and event
>> (kqueue vs epoll) perspective, I think it would
>> have been easier to have switched sooner. Some
>> things that others like about BSD are Dtrace and
>> jails. I don't know much about either of those,
>> but expect to use Dtrace eventually.
>>
>
> I've been trying Dtrace on BSD today. I have to
> run dtrace from /boot/kernel for it to kind of work.
> When I tried to get a user stack (ustack()) on the
> C++ Middleware Writer, it lists a number of addresses
> rather than function names. Is there something I
> have to do to get the names?

Capture the process data before dtrace exits. If the process exits
before dtrace is able to read the symbolic data, you will just get the
stack frame addresses. I usually use dtrace -c to run the command I
want to trace. This avoids the lack of symbolic data problem. For
example, a grab from one of my unit tests that intercepts malloc calls:

libc.so.1`__pread+0x15
libc.so.1`read_safe+0x38
libc.so.1`walkcontext+0x63
f1`_ZN4test6malloccvPvEv+0x1a0
f1`malloc+0x24
libstdc++.so.6.0.18`_Znwj+0x29
libstdc++.so.6.0.18`_ZNSs4_Rep9_S_createEjjRKSaIcE+0x65
libstdc++.so.6.0.18`_ZNSs12_S_constructIPKcEEPcT_S3_RKSaIcESt20forward_iterator_tag+0x4
libstdc++.so.6.0.18`_ZNSsC1EPKcRKSaIcE+0x41
libcppunit.so`_ZN7CppUnit10TestRunnerC1Ev+0x55
f1`main+0x97
f1`_start+0x72

> And after I stop dtrace with control-c, the C++ Middleware
> Writer hangs. I have to restart the back tier (cmw) to
> get things working again. Is that to be expected?

No idea, it depends how you are running things.
--
Ian Collins

[me]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:13:02 -0500, Robert Hutchings wrote:

> Some people strongly prefer Slackware....

I've been a Fedora guy since about FC8. For what I do I need the
bleeding edge packages.


-------------------------
SuperMicro SuperServer
2 * 2.4ghz quad-core Westmere CPUs
24GB RAM
8 * 1TB disks configured in 2 software raid5 volumes
nVidia GTX460
40inch Samsung 1080p monitor
original IBM Model-M "clicky" keyboard

Hey! It heats my house in the winter. LOL

[me]

Back in the late 90s and early 2000s I was exclusively a BSDi (commercial
BSD) guy. Then when Linux started to become stable, around kernel 2.4.x,
I started using Linux exclusively again.

[Chicken Mcnuggets]

On 25/11/14 05:09, me wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:13:02 -0500, Robert Hutchings wrote:
>
>> Some people strongly prefer Slackware....
>
>
> I've been a Fedora guy since about FC8. For what I do I need the
> bleeding edge packages.
>

Then why not use Gentoo or Arch Linux? Both really do have bleeding edge
packages.

I'm an Arch Linux guy myself and love it. Everything works if you
configure it correctly. It is extremely fast on my machine (even though
I don't have it installed on an SSD) and all the dev tools such as
compilers, profilers and debuggers are always up to date. Plus running
the latest stable kernel and having the latest glibc at all times helps
when you want to test out new features in Linux.

Overall I don't see why someone wouldn't use Arch Linux on the desktop.
Servers are a different matter and for that I prefer either OpenBSD or
the Ubuntu LTS releases (because they have a well defined support life
cycle).

[me]

Not worth debating online for the next several months. Fedora is what I
have been using, I know how to tweak it, and it well supports the
rpmfusion repository of packages that don't meet their licensing
guidelines, but are indispensable nonetheless. It's not without its many
annoyances (short release lifecycles, bleeding edge stuff not being well
documented or well tested, etc), but on the beefy machine I run it on and
in the VirtualBox VMs I create, it works for me.

[Martijn Lievaart]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 02:15:58 +0000, me wrote:

> Not worth debating online for the next several months. Fedora is what I
> have been using, I know how to tweak it, and it well supports the
> rpmfusion repository of packages that don't meet their licensing
> guidelines, but are indispensable nonetheless. It's not without its
> many annoyances (short release lifecycles, bleeding edge stuff not being
> well documented or well tested, etc), but on the beefy machine I run it
> on and in the VirtualBox VMs I create, it works for me.

Agree, so the following only added for reference to others. I'm not
trying to start a flame war, if anyone replies, keep it factual!

I used to use FC/CentOS. I have now switched to Ubuntu (LTS for servers,
latest for desktops), but still have CentOS servers.

The annoyances are similar. The difference is superficial mostly.

The most important differences I have noticed:

- Ubuntu LTS is for the most more recent than the latest CentOS.

- Ubuntu LTS may be less stable than the latest CentOS when it comes out,
although the difference is not big.

- Upgrading Ubuntu to a newer version is much easier than both FC and
CentOS (may have changed recently?)

- RHEL and thus CentOS are better accepted in the market, both at
$ORKPLACES and by commercial software vendors.

- Rpmfusion is dependent on a few maintainers, which has recently led to
a standstill (now resolved afaik).

- Having seperate ppa's seems to work out much better than having one big
rpmfusion in terms of compatibility. You can safely add lot's of ppa's
adding only exactly what you need, but if you add rpmfusion you get it
all, including their upgrades for existing CentOS packages which you may
not want and can lead to uninstallable packages from CentOS or other
sources.

- Having seperate ppa's means there is a much better chance someone
created a ppa for the software you are looking for.

- It's nice to have less differences between your servers and desktops,
however, with VMs in abundance you should develop on a VM matching your
target, so the difference becomes more moot.

- Both yum/rpm and apt/dpkg have advantages and disadvantages. Despite
the strong voices on this one ('apt is lightyears ahead') I find the
differences not very convincing.
- Apt is much faster (although yum is gaining)
- Dpkg does not allow dependencies between packages be listed as easily
as rpm f.i, something I need regularly.
- I do find the tools for apt/dpkg are much better in general, thanks
to having only one repository standard, but working with rpm is still
slightly easier for a techie like me.
- I personally find both lacking in how they handle configfiles

- There is no real debootstrap for RedHat (there is a febootstrap but I
found that to be dangerously buggy, only use in a fakeroot chroot
environment)

There are many similarities between FC and Ubuntu latest, which mostly
boil down to 'Lots of stuff is broken which may or may not get fixed'.

In the end, I prefer Ubuntu now, but the differences are not as large as
others may make you believe.

As I haven't used FC for a while now, the above may be out of date,
although I don't expect it to be.

M4

[Mr Flibble]

[Martijn Lievaart]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:14:27 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:

[snip]

> Linus hates C++ though.

And you really had to quote a hundred lines for this non comment?

M4

[Melzzzzz]

Perhaps he writes from cell phone? ;)

[Chicken Mcnuggets]

On 26/11/14 10:43, Martijn Lievaart wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 02:15:58 +0000, me wrote:
>
>> Not worth debating online for the next several months. Fedora is what I
>> have been using, I know how to tweak it, and it well supports the
>> rpmfusion repository of packages that don't meet their licensing
>> guidelines, but are indispensable nonetheless. It's not without its
>> many annoyances (short release lifecycles, bleeding edge stuff not being
>> well documented or well tested, etc), but on the beefy machine I run it
>> on and in the VirtualBox VMs I create, it works for me.
>
> Agree, so the following only added for reference to others. I'm not
> trying to start a flame war, if anyone replies, keep it factual!

>[snip]

Good list. I've never been a fan of Red Hat based distros but I think it
is primarily down to having a rather bad experience with Red Hat 5 or 6
in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was back then (this was before Red Hat
went all enterprisey).

Since then I've either stuck to Debian based distros or Arch Linux. I
had a brief spell on Linux from Scratch (which was a great learning
experience) but for day to day work LFS really REALLY sucks. More than
Gentoo :P.

I hear Linus uses Fedora for his dev machine so I guess it can't be all
bad. Maybe I'll give it a go in a VM or something sometime and see if
RPM has improved at all in the last 14 years or so.

[Christopher Pisz]

I've read all the posts in this thread and see very little to do with
the topic of the newsgroup at all. This is just another "I use Linux!"
"Me too!" "I like this flavor!" "I like this one!" thread.

So, technically the entire thread shouldn't be here at all.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 3:46:07 PM UTC-6, Christopher Pisz wrote:
>
>
> I've read all the posts in this thread and see very little to do with
> the topic of the newsgroup at all. This is just another "I use Linux!"
> "Me too!" "I like this flavor!" "I like this one!" thread.
>

My opinion of Linux isn't as high as it used to be.
I think FreeBSD has better TCP support than Linux.

http://freebsd.org