241–250 of 329 posts
Hard to beat Ubuntu LTS. It has plenty of documentation and community support, has mostly up-to-date drivers and runs VirtualBox. LTS offers stability over several years. I use Xubuntu variant with i3. Moreover, I prefer to develop on the same OS I deploy to. ArchLinux: Great community but too many surprises when updating that sometimes break things or in one case left the OS unbootable. Fun to tinker with but if you…
Debian and I'm surprised more people aren't saying so. Ubuntu or Mint, which are built on Debian do not add much value these days, IMO and Ubuntu's 6 month release cycle is intolerable. If you get behind with upgrades you are screwed. Even after all these years it's hard to beat apt-get. I think a lot of people dismiss Debian as unmodern or some how less than the distros built on it but that's hardly the case. Debian…
If you don't like fiddling with your OS once you get set up, then you should be using some sort of LTS distro like Ubuntu or perhaps a BSD. Things like debian, arch, and fedora require a modicum of maintenance (not much, but it's there). If you don't mind (or like!) fiddling, then a rolling release distro is best.
Debian and I'm surprised more people aren't saying so. Ubuntu or Mint, which are built on Debian do not add much value these days, IMO and Ubuntu's 6 month release cycle is intolerable. If you get behind with upgrades you are screwed. Even after all these years it's hard to beat apt-get. I think a lot of people dismiss Debian as unmodern or some how less than the distros built on it but that's hardly the case. Debian…
Ever tried to install Debian on a Macbook without an Ethernet-to-USB cable? I take it not, because then you would know how completely retarded it is that you need a second USB stick with the broadcom-wl driver on it to do a proper install. Debian's 'free software' zealotry makes for a horrible UX.
Edit: and here come the 'free software' zealots. Keep downvoting, but everyone out of your echo chamber can see how rabidly sticking to ideology completely destroys usability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am running ArchLinux right now on a my machine (webapp dev and network technician) and I don't recomment it. I don't blame ArchLinux per se, but rolling updates are no good for someone like me. Updates break things. Often. Almost every time. And you don't notice until you need to use that broken thing. To install new things you may need to update whole system. And you break something completely different. -PHP7 jus…
Your experience mirrors mine: Arch just breaks way too many things all the time. I feel like I'm a sysadmin. Yesterday, Python 3.6 broke so many things (including my DE). I fixed few things I needed but who knows what else is broken on my system... it's hard to tell since I don't test every single thing that depends on a specific package. I still use Arch daily because I've set it up the way I like it and don't want…
Debian and I'm surprised more people aren't saying so. Ubuntu or Mint, which are built on Debian do not add much value these days, IMO and Ubuntu's 6 month release cycle is intolerable. If you get behind with upgrades you are screwed. Even after all these years it's hard to beat apt-get. I think a lot of people dismiss Debian as unmodern or some how less than the distros built on it but that's hardly the case. Debian…
I recommend Fedora, it has more up-to-date stuff and very developer friendly. I'm probably biased though because the high-energy-physics stuff I develop for usually runs on EL-variants, so Fedora is naturally a good platform for it. I've always had more trouble compiling random things on debian-based stuff though (probably has something to do with default linker flags and poorly-written packages). RH has a big virtua…
If the user just wants to get work done and doesn't care if they have the latest thing, why not CentOS?
- Its stable while being very latest of packages. So I am done with distro upgrades which might break something between version changes.
- It has largest number of packages in repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributi... .
- YaST is great for everything to administer - NetworkManager, static network config, printers, kernel parameters, sysconfig, docker and what not. So I do not have to hop through different GUI's
- Hardware works out of box mostly (because I am on MacBook Pro)
- The community is vibrant, receptive and responsive. Till now I haven't seen anybody pushing an agenda of preferring one way over other (systemd would be another discussion). Most packages are as good as upstream with little branding change, which also can be changed with a package change from Yast (or zypper).
- Server, desktop, RaspberryPi (and variants) are supported from same base.
- OpenQA, OBS, Suse Studio and packman!
- Defaults set are good to go, but you can easily change them, for most packages and configurations in general. The distro doesn't stand in your way that you have to change something very basic for the distro itself.
IMHO after inside all distro's are same, since you still need to use bash, KDE/GNOME, systemd, NetworkManager, FFMPEG etc. unless you are rolling your own solution. They differ in what they pack as defaults, updates and administration tools provide, and what they consider as "best config" for your use case. openSUE seems to have a fail balance on these.
Hard to beat Ubuntu LTS. It has plenty of documentation and community support, has mostly up-to-date drivers and runs VirtualBox. LTS offers stability over several years. I use Xubuntu variant with i3. Moreover, I prefer to develop on the same OS I deploy to. ArchLinux: Great community but too many surprises when updating that sometimes break things or in one case left the OS unbootable. Fun to tinker with but if you…
Fedora has really cleaned up the release upgrade process over the last couple versions. Transitioning from Fedora 24 to 25 was surprisingly painless!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the user just wants to get work done and doesn't care if they have the latest thing, why not CentOS?
CentOS is meant to be a server OS and misses a lot of the niceties that Desktop Linux variants have.