Which distro? (for an experienced user)
Victor Porton
workstation. I consider to reinstall Linux from scratch, copying only /
home/* to the new system.
The question arises: Which distro to choose? I ask which distro to
choose for an experienced Linux user, comfortable with command line
and knowing about system administration, but wishing to have a decent
GUI also.
Sidney Lambe
You know, that doesn't really make sense. Why would someone who
is an experienced Linux user comfortable with the commandline
need to ask this qustion? It's a newbie question. How could you not
know that Slackware is the best choice for this? But I'll play along.
I use Slackware because it is the simplest and cleanest of the
distros, the easiest to customize. Un-patched kernel and only
bash scripts for system initialization and operations. Perl, etc.,
are optional.
Don't use a GUI except for a very few graphical applications I
occassionally need. Until then, X is not running.
My main window manager is gnu screen. I forget which of the tiny
X-window manager's I use when I bring up X (using a tiny-X server
rather than the stock X-Window system.).
I don't use a desktop environment like KDE at all, although I obviously
could. Just a waste of space and other system resources and a pain
in the butt to use as an interface compared to the commandline.
Sid
Victor Porton
> Victor Porton <por...@narod.ru> wrote:
> > I have some problems with the current Linux installation on my
> > workstation. I consider to reinstall Linux from scratch, copying only /
> > home/* to the new system.
>
> > The question arises: Which distro to choose? I ask which distro to
> > choose for an experienced Linux user, comfortable with command line
> > and knowing about system administration, but wishing to have a decent
> > GUI also.
>
> You know, that doesn't really make sense. Why would someone who
> is an experienced Linux user comfortable with the commandline
> need to ask this qustion? It's a newbie question. How could you not
> know that Slackware is the best choice for this? But I'll play along.
With my present DSL network setup and unlimited traffic I had tried
only Mandriva.
Previously I was trying to use Debian, but that with with an analog
modem, and I don't have experience of using Debian with a good network
which I have now.
So I had much experience but only with Debian and Mandriva and had no
serious experience with other distros.
> I use Slackware because it is the simplest and cleanest of the
> distros, the easiest to customize. Un-patched kernel and only
> bash scripts for system initialization and operations. Perl, etc.,
> are optional.
Thus Slackware is not my choice. I was not simplicity but power.
P.S. I a little viewed distros comparison. Maybe I should use Debian
because it has the greatest number of packages? Or what other
suggestions?
ray
My own personal preference is for Debian based distros over rpm distros -
I've had far fewer problems. I'm quite happy with Debian - installed in
on my wife's asus eeepc and running quite well - no problems. On the
other hand since you mentioned Linux From Scratch, what's wrong with
that? I realize it would take a while . . .
Sidney Lambe
You can run any application on Slackware you can run on any other
distro. If you don't know that you are lying about being an
experienced user.
The other distros don't give you power, they give you clutter.
>
> P.S. I a little viewed distros comparison. Maybe I should use Debian
> because it has the greatest number of packages? Or what other
> suggestions?
You asked for the best distro for an experienced Linux user who is
comfortable with the commandline and is a sysadmin.
That's Slackware.
The other major distros are primarily for appliance operators.
>
> P.S. I a little viewed distros comparison. Maybe I should use Debian
> because it has the greatest number of packages? Or what other
> suggestions?
I don't think you could do anything with a commandline except stare
at it.
Go away.
Sid
Keith Keller
Simplicity *is* power.
Don't listen to ''Sidney''--Perl is optional but available, just as it
is in every other distribution. The one potential drawback to Slackware
is that it has fewer packages than many other mainstream distros.
Slackbuilds is one attempt to let admins build their own packages for
software that is not part of a Slackware release:
> P.S. I a little viewed distros comparison. Maybe I should use Debian
> because it has the greatest number of packages? Or what other
> suggestions?
You should pick a distro based on your needs. Do you need the greatest
number of packages? If not, that's not a reason to pick Debian. You
should try to think about the software you do need, then see if the
distros in which you're interested have those packages.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
notbob
> The question arises: Which distro to choose? I ask which distro to
> choose for an experienced Linux user, comfortable with command line
> and knowing about system administration, but wishing to have a decent
> GUI also.
I don't want to get involved in some distro war, but I think Slackware is
exactly what you describe.
Slackware's administration is all CLI. Basic bash scripts with plenty of
#comments# to make even the newest newb comfortable. All programs and
utilities are "vanilla" -- original, not tweaked -- versions that can be
tweaked to the slack user's call. This includes full KDE and 5 other
desktops. In short, Slackware is the most neutral distro around, yet
includes all the newest GUI interfaces available. Some even newer than
ubuntu.
Slackware = your choice
nb
The Natural Philosopher
Debian or Ubuntu
Jean-David Beyer
Since I have run only Red Hat distributions, I cannot compare them with any
others. I have run most of Red Hat's since Red Hat Linux 5.0 up to Red Hat
Linux 9. I do not recall running Red Hat Linux 8. Of those, the best one was
Red Hat Linux 7.3, All of these have been obsolete for many years.
These days I run Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 on my main machine (and ran RHEL
3 for a few years before that) and CentOS 4 on my older machine.
All of these work just fine. My older machine is mainly a print server and
has my CD-ROM burner on it. It spends most of its time running BOINC
applications.
I run GNOME as desktop on both. I never liked KDE, but if you like that, no
problem because both are available. You can even install both if you like (I
don't).
It seems to me that any stable Linux distro should work for you. I have
friends who run Ubuntu and they do not have any problems with it either.
The reason I think any distro should work for you is because they are pretty
much the same. The main differences seem to be how updates are managed.
Relatives of Red Hat use RPM, and the others use something else (I forget
the name). Both can work pretty well. I used to have trouble with RPM, but
since Red Hat established their "Red Hat Network" those problems went away.
Some people like other distributions, and they are probably fine too. The
reason for liking other distributions are that they load less clutter into
your system. Since I never installed anything but Red Hat, I cannot say if
the _default_ install of one has less clutter than another, but for Red Hat,
at least, you get to choose what is installed. If you tell it to install
everything, I imagine you would get an awful lot. But I do not do that.
I do install a compilation system, name server, sendmail, postgreSQL dbms. I
do not install a web server, and lots of other stuff. But an experienced
user could fairly easily determine what to install and what to leave out.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 05:35:01 up 15 days, 16:24, 3 users, load average: 4.53, 4.24, 4.09
No Alternative
Well most will probably tell you slackware. I personally adore Arch
Linux. Many people also like Gentoo. I have recently had good
experiences with openbsd. If you would like it too be light and nimble,
you might want to try my distro u-lite, in my sig. It is ubuntu with
lxde, and light applications, so it runs superfast.
--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org
Dan C
Bugger off yourself, Alan Connor.
--
"Sidney Lambe" ("Tom Newton") - the latest nymshift of "Alan Connor".
Read more about the netkook Alan Connor here:
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml
Email him: calh...@gmail.com or simple...@gmail.com
D.Campagna
Have a lean, clean, rock-solid Slackware and enjoy!
Maxwell Lol
By the way - I mentioned Gentoo before. I said I was looking into it.
This weekend I just got a Fit PC Slim for $200 that comes with Ubuntu
and Gentoo dual boot pre-installed. I wanted a lean and optimized
server, so I choose Gentoo. Besides Ubuntu didn't work the the Apple
keyboard I borrowed from my wife.
I'm doing the update (emerge -D world) and it started reinstalling,
and recompiling 323 packages. It started 2 days ago and it's halfway
done. It's not a fast server (twas only $200) and it has 500mHZ CPU
with 512MB RAM.
But 4 days for an OS update was far longer than what I expected.
And I still don't know if I will have problems with the update.
Balwinder S Dheeman
This is what, I have been asking from proponents of both Gentoo and, or
FreeBSD, who prefer downloading, fine-tuning and, or compiling each and
every thing -- Is there an authoritative comparison report available on
the *so called performance gains* by compiling source packages?
Is not that merely a wastage of time, bandwidth, cpu and, or other
resources?
I have not looked at Gentoo portages since long, but I found and
reported many a serious flaws in the FreeBSD ports collection and build
system, but none bothered to resolve and, or device any alternatives.
--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP
Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/
Baho Utot
[putolin]
>
> This is what, I have been asking from proponents of both Gentoo and, or
> FreeBSD, who prefer downloading, fine-tuning and, or compiling each and
> every thing -- Is there an authoritative comparison report available on
> the *so called performance gains* by compiling source packages?
>
> Is not that merely a wastage of time, bandwidth, CPU and, or other
> resources?
>
No, it insures me that I don't have any malware or other added features to
the package and most packages are compiled for i686 generic. By compiling
all the packages on my system I can take advantage of the CPU type and
optimize for it.
Make Xorg and the window managers a bit faster.
If one uses Arch Linux custom compiling packages is very easy, I have tuned
packages for an old AMD slot A and installed only what that server needed
and nothing else. Helps with security.
Gregory Shearman
Have you looked into using distcc to share the compile load? I use it
for updating my eeepc701. It reduces the time for updates considerably.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Maxwell Lol
>> But 4 days for an OS update was far longer than what I expected.
>> And I still don't know if I will have problems with the update.
>
> Have you looked into using distcc to share the compile load? I use it
> for updating my eeepc701. It reduces the time for updates considerably.
Not yet. Thanks for the tip. I'll look into it.
Tris Orendorff
news:gcc7i6-...@lapu-lapu.bildanet.com:
>
> Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:
>
> [putolin]
>>
>> This is what, I have been asking from proponents of both Gentoo and,
>> or FreeBSD, who prefer downloading, fine-tuning and, or compiling
>> each and every thing -- Is there an authoritative comparison report
>> available on the *so called performance gains* by compiling source
>> packages?
>>
>> Is not that merely a wastage of time, bandwidth, CPU and, or other
>> resources?
>>
>
> No, it insures me that I don't have any malware or other added
> features to the package and most packages are compiled for i686
> generic. By compiling all the packages on my system I can take
> advantage of the CPU type and optimize for it.
How does recompiling "[it] insure[s] me that I didn't have any malware?" The only way of finding suspicious stuff is to
read and understand the source code. One person can't review 323 packages in four years...
--
Tris Orendorff
[ Anyone naming their child should spend a few minutes checking rhyming slang and dodgy sounding names. Brad and
Angelina failed to do this when naming their kid Shiloh Pitt. At some point, someone at school is going to spoonerise her
name.
Craig Stark ]