Slashdot Mirror


Best Linux Distribution (linuxjournal.com)

Linux Journal: We started things off with Best Linux Distribution, and nearly 10,000 readers voted. The winner was Debian, with many commenting "As for servers, Debian is still the best" or similar. One to watch that is rising in the polls is Manjaro (7 percent), which is independently based on the Arch Linux. Manjaro is a favorite for Linux newcomers and is known for its user-friendliness and accessibility. And, now for the top three LJ winners: Debian (33 percent), openSUSE (12 percent), and Fedora (11 percent).

120 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Umm. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    No link to TFA? Then again, this is modern day slashdot.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:Umm. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Now it's there. Didn't show up before.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:Umm. by drafalski · · Score: 2

      Honestly no link is needed - the summary is about all there is. It is a website poll result. No discussion or information. No real reason to look.

      I can't wait to see linux journal's article on whatever slashdot's current poll is next week!

    3. Re:Umm. by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      You don't realy need a citation to know that Debian is the best.

  2. Best Linux Distribution? by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Best Linux Distribution?

    Well, that's one way to start a, cough, cough *debate* ... now where did I leave my flame resistant suit?

    1. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slackware?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Hell, I don't need a flame-resistant suit, burn it down for all I care!

      Fanbois unite! Go and crowd around whatever is the popular flavor of the week. Oh, Debian again? LOL awesome! Black gets to be the new black this season!

      I get no benefit at all from others making the same choice as me.

      Linux is for experts. If you have a good reason to use linux, you probably know what it is. You can probably select the distro that best meets the needs of your use case. I prefer the business-y one that has been unpopular but somehow one of the most used ever since the 90s.

      Thanks to Debian for being like a giant honeypot sucking in the newbs and keeping them out of the help forums that sysadmins use! 3 3 3

    3. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree with your logic. Android is Linux, though not GNU/Linux. You can install busybox to get a fairly complete traditional userland, or you can use Linux Deploy to install a truly complete one. I don't see how anyone can justify claiming that ain't Linux.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Of course - there's a lot of ways to be "best." Best end-user experience, best server, easiest to maintain, etc., etc.... offering an opinion here is pointless.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by xvan · · Score: 1

      Better liked than the alternatives (tizen, sailfish, windows, symbian and qnx).
      Pre-existing ecosystem is not a valid argument, all those flavors were concurrent to android, and the ecosystem argument is used for favouring windows over GNU/Linux

    6. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by jmccue · · Score: 2

      I do not know why this is funny, but since we are doing meaningless polls, Slackware was rated the best server in LQ for 2018:

      https://www.linuxquestions.org...

    7. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by Tsolias · · Score: 1

      Due to recent *nix friendly updates as well as POSIX compatibility I'd say Windows 10

    8. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Describing Android as a Linux distro is very accurate IMHO. It has no GNU, just as some distros use Systemd while others don't.

      Most used, surely.

      Well liked? Sorry, no. It's the ONLY Linux distribution available. It's only better than iOS (a *BSD derivate), but you don't have the same level of control which is possible with Linux -- or rather, you can have the same level of control, but hardware is too diverse to allow another distribution to spread among Android users. In a way, Google has done what Microsoft really dreamed of. That surely is not liked by most.

      > And it isn't even close.

      I fail to understand that. Is Slackware not even close to Android? Or is Android not even close to being the best distribution?

    9. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      -wear : A suffix applied to mean the garb associated thereof.

      Slacks, n : A name for fancy pants, as opposed to informal jeans or sweatpants. The sort you wear with a suit.

      Dude asked where his "flame-resistant suit" was. Other dude made a garment pun.

      There. The joke is dead now. It died in a fire.

    10. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Linux is also good for mostly clueless end users who use nothing more than a web browser and email client. Since I put Mint on my mom's computer (she's 81... ) a couple of years (when the "auto upgrade to win10" crap started) I've stopped getting calls about fixing her computer from viruses, expired trialware crap, etc.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    11. Re:Best Linux Distribution? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Right, but Mom has you, and you understand her use case.

      Clueless users that don't have an i.r.id10t around to do it for them would have an easier time buying some sort of netbook, running who cares.

  3. Best for what? by sqorbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's like asking what the best car is? Are you trying to transport 8 people, or 5 sheets of drywall? Asking what the best linux distro is silly and only adds to the confusion for those not familiar with linux. Personally I'm a huge fan of Debian and it's my go to unless I need some speciality distro. If someone asked me for a recommendation of install Linux for the first time they've ever done it on a laptop, Debian might not be my answer. I understand the need for Top 10 lists, and ranking systems in our lives. It makes for the best click bait. Best linux distro is just something not needed. One of the best things about Linux is the distro's can be drastically different and fit different needs. Why do we need to try to narrow it down to one?

    --
    Sent from my TARDIS
    1. Re:Best for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, it's possible to run systemd on just about any distro.

    2. Re:Best for what? by dmbasso · · Score: 3, Informative

      I helped my mother (74 years old at the time) install Debian in her new computer, through a voice-only call. I was surprised how easy it is to do it nowadays.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    3. Re:Best for what? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I've been using Linux for almost 20 years. I can't recall ever manually installing firmware (short of running the nvidia installer.) I think I had an old bother or cannon printer that I had to find the correct drivers for but I even have to do that with my windows 10 machine for my HP Envy wireless printer.

  4. yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Desktop Distribution of the Year - Ubuntu (18.17%)
    Server Distribution of the Year - Slackware (22.40%)

    I cant believe 10,000 people changed their minds in 24 hours

    1. Re:yesterday by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I cant believe 10,000 people changed their minds in 24 hours

      In Putinist Russia, mind changes you!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:yesterday by pjrc · · Score: 1

      [spoken in heavy Russian accept]

      In Capialeest America, za bank robs you.

    3. Re:yesterday by kenh · · Score: 1

      Nearly an entire county changed their mind less than 24 hours after the November election.

      Wrong.

      First off, if we assume voting results were an accurate reflection of the mood of the country at the time of the election, Hillary's supporters didn't change their opinions after the election - they didn't like trump before the election, and they didn't like him after the election - no change.

      Second, Trump's supporters liked Trum before the election, and they still like him after the election - no change.

      Currently Trump is running about 40-45% popularity, slightly lower than his election results - so at best, maybe 10% of Americans changed their minds in the 15 months since the election.

      "If 20,000 Pennsylvanians changed their votes we would have looked like geniuses" - John Podesta

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:yesterday by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

      Trump's approval rating is actually at 48% right now, a full 4 percentage points higher than Obama at the same time into his presidency. It's great to have an effective leader that cares about the middle class rather than one that mugs them for their milk money.

      --
      -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  5. Too complicated by Master5000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just use Windows. Choice sucks for the average user. Preinstalled is the way to go. People have no idea there is a difference between hardware and software and that you can choose to install your OS. Microsoft understood this. Why can't Linux world understand that?

    1. Re:Too complicated by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Just use Windows. Choice sucks for the average user. Preinstalled is the way to go. People have no idea there is a difference between hardware and software and that you can choose to install your OS. Microsoft understood this. Why can't Linux world understand that?

      You realize there are companies that make computers with Linux pre-installed, right? Dell is one of them.

    2. Re:Too complicated by KixWooder · · Score: 1

      Anyone else? I've been burned to hell and back with Dell and will never give them another dollar as long as I live.

      --
      I hate fat people.
    3. Re:Too complicated by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Just use Windows. Choice sucks for the average user.

      Unironically agree.

    4. Re:Too complicated by kenh · · Score: 1

      Good luck with your ads that winblows is going to push.

      Do you have any idea how rare it is to see an ad from Windows? Of course not - you hate Windows, and a friend told you a story about ads on Windows that confirmed your bias, so why question it - just repeat it.

      Whatever ads you imagine "Winblows" pushes on you are dwarfed by the ads pushed on you when you take your browser - regardless of operating environment - to any social media website, any news site, etc.

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:Too complicated by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Whatever ads you imagine "Winblows" pushes on you are dwarfed by the ads pushed on you when you take your browser - regardless of operating environment - to any social media website, any news site, etc.

      Well, that would be close to 0. (Unfortunately, some ads are embedded directly into a page, and aren't subject to adblockers, so it's not 0)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  6. Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by MindPrison · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...After Mint I never looked back.

    Windows 10 gives me hurdles of issues.

    Mint Linux? Works, and works - and works. Love it.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      You can install the Windows subsystem for Linux.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by Major_Disorder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mint on the desktop. Debian on the server. Makes life easy.
      They are alike enough that you don't need to relearn every time you need to do something, but philosophically they are different in ways that make sense.
      Linux Mint (cinnamon) installs basically all the software you will need for a desktop, this gets you up and running quickly and easily.
      On the other hand Debian installs just about nothing then you add the features and services you need. Making for a more secure install out of the box.

      This is a winning combination in my book. I am even starting to get used to systemd.

      --
      First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    3. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by Frederic54 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Same, started with Mint 13 or something, now at 17.3 with Xfce, I like it, it just works, everything works, nvidia GPU, wifi, BT, sound, etc

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by Major_Disorder · · Score: 2

      You can install the Windows subsystem for Linux.

      You can wack yourself over the head with a 2x4 as well, but a discussion of the merits of 2x4 wacking, does not belong in this thread either.

      --
      First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    5. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      IDK if you're being sarcastic or not, but while I still have Linux partitions I can boot with, I use WSL and find that it actually works great. Of course, it still requires installing a distribution (and there are now several to choose from).

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    6. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Informative

      Windows 10 isn't so bad actually.

      But the thing is - Mint never let me down. I use Win 10 at work, and I even have a win 10 partition on a separate drive...which does get bluescreened once in a blue moon, but Mint? Never happens. I can turn Mint on every night, and it never fails me - ever!

      I'm a pragmatic person at my age now, I'm in my 50's. I remember my days compiling Slack to my preferences, and not to forget ...lazing off with Mandrake and Red Hat linux, ah - those where the days. But Mint (Ubuntu essentially) has won me over, because I'm now too old for "shit that don't work". I just wanna come home, be comfortable, watch my shitty netflix series, play my steam games...and surf my silly youtube videos and whatnot...Arduino comes to mind (yes I use that....semi daily)

      The thing is - Mint made everything work out of the box, no permission shit, no endless nerding around like I was 20 again... ...And still - it works SOOOO much better than any windows OS I remember messing around with for the last 25+ years.

      Thanks Mint + Ubuntu + Linux people for your tireless efforts, you truly are the kings amongst men.

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    7. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you get splinters if you whacked your 2x4?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    8. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by careysub · · Score: 1

      I have tried many desktop Linux distributions over the years, but one thing really stands out. Every time I used Mint is was a positive experience, not so much any of the others. I reinstalled my desktop OS a few months ago, removing Ubuntu (the last time I will ever give it a try I think) and installing Mint Cinnamon.

      It was the correct thing to do.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    9. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      While I wouldn't recommend using WSL for your primary computing needs (just because it is rather slow, compared to native Linux) however it is rather good for those random Linux only tasks, and with a choice for Ubuntu, Fedora and Suse gives you the core features that you need from the distributions.

      I see WSL and Wine as different side for the same need. If you are using mostly Linux and need the random Windows App, then a Linux OS with Wine, works. If you are using mostly windows with the random Linux tool then WSL works.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      My only complaint about Mint is the upgrade path is more complex than other distributions. It's basically a clean install.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    11. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      And? My development over the years has gone from IRIX to Mac to Linux to Windows. The graphics software I use is Windows only, but I write web services for data integration - they run on Linux, but my local development environment runs under WSL so that I don't need to be connected to work in order to work on it - it's fully functional and recently, while on a remote operation, I just ran my web services from it so that I could continue working in Windows. I had zero problems and was very impressed. I had the Linux partition all up to date with my latest code just in case, but didn't need it. I've been a big MS detractor since before most slashdotters were born (I was in college during the DRDOS escapades), but when something works, it works.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by kenh · · Score: 1

      Windows 10 gives me hurdles of issues.

      Windows never gives me even one hurdle of an issue - most likely because I took the time to learn how to work with it, and given the fact that around 95% of desktop end-users also use Windows, I think you are an outlier.

      --
      Ken
    13. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      I've not found that to be the case.

      After changing the sources I run apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade to update to the new version.

      Admittedly I do keep a bootable USB key to hand for the times this causes GRUB to eat itself.

      I've had very little in the way of reinstalls since I started using Mint, but I still prefer Arch.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    14. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      This process has worked for me as well, although it is always best to be prepared for the worst. With my /home mounted on a different device (well, RAID-1 setup actually) reinstalling from scratch if needed is quick and easy and doesn't endanger my own data files.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    15. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by houghi · · Score: 1

      I use Debian on my server and Debian on my portable and Debian on my desktop. The reason is that I have only one thing to do. I have used openSUSE in the past.

      For the portable the more important question to me is not what distro, but what Desktop. I do see little to no difference between using XFCE on openSUSE or on Debian after I am done configuring it how I like. I have not tried it, but I doubt that it will be much different to Mint and XFCE.

      I rather have only one thing to do that I can do on all machines, than to pick them. I am not a gamer, so 3D is not something I need. I just looked up some screenshots for XFCE Mint and I see nothing that I would keep or that is special compared to Debian or openSUSE.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:Used slackware for 8+ years...and then Mint by MindPrison · · Score: 1

      Windows 10 gives me hurdles of issues.

      Windows never gives me even one hurdle of an issue - most likely because I took the time to learn how to work with it, and given the fact that around 95% of desktop end-users also use Windows, I think you are an outlier.

      My spell-checker didn't get the word "outlier" and neither did I (I'm not natively English).

      But besides that, I'm actually a windows supporter. We've recently rolled out Windows 10 in our organization, and I challenge your windows fancy any day of the year. :p

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  7. Re:Learn to read a graph? by dszd0g · · Score: 1

    Manjaro actually got 4%. Mint above it on the graph got 7%.

    I agree. Msmash misread the poll and the summary is wrong.

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  8. Alpine by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My favorite is Alpine because it is systemd-free, light-weight, and security-focused.

    1. Re:Alpine by Hoover,L+Ron · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain to a Winblows user like a 5 year old, why not having systemd on a Linux system is a good thing? What is this debate all about?

    2. Re:Alpine by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      systemd moves various services that were previously provided by applications instead of the OS into the OS itself. This has various advantages and disadvantages vs. more traditional unix OS design.

      In addition to people who don't like it for rational reasons, there is also a bunch of more militant OSS types are convinced this is part of a giant "flouride is turning us into commies" style global conspiracy, which is where most of the constant arguing comes from.

    3. Re:Alpine by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative
    4. Re:Alpine by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Linux and in fact all Unixes are built around the philosophy of having a bunch of simple tools. Each one doing its specific job well. systemd inherited the Windows philosophy of being a hairball that tries to do everything.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Alpine by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

      It all comes down to the grey beards not liking change.

    6. Re:Alpine by slack_justyb · · Score: 2

      Quick but trying to be detailed explain of systemd.

      The technical So systemd is an init for some Linux systems. When Linux or for that matter any UNIX like OS is done loading the kernel into memory (RAM), as it's last step it calls a program called "init". Typically this program is in the /sbin folder. There's tons of different init systems that have been written for all kinds of different *nix OSes. Your most basic init would need to call a program called "agetty" which basically loads a terminal for you to actually login. However, to have an actually usable system, your init needs to mount any filesystems that haven't been mounted (typically the root filesystem, the one containing the /sbin folder among other things, is mounted by an earlier phase called the ramdisk), start any services (like MySQL or whatever), and get your IP address/set it statically. That should give you an idea of what init "does".

      Of course it should be obvious from this that there is a "this must start first before this" nature to this. Like you might need an IP address before you start up a web server. Each init defines different ways of specifying that order. Additionally, an init doesn't actually start these things up, it calls a program that does it. So init itself doesn't get you an IP address, it just calls the dhcp-client program and that program gets your IP address. Of course, calling these things one after the other is kind of slow, after your IP address is set, your MySQL starts up, and then your web server, and then this, and then that, and then finally agetty is started for a login. For some that's not their thing, but whatever, you can get the idea there.

      Of course when you have an order in which things happen, you also have an order of things for when something changes. Got a new IP address? Might need to update your servers, etc... Also when you stop a service you might need to notify others that it's going down. MySQL stopping? Might need to notify the web server as well. All of this and we haven't even gotten to what happens when you plug in a USB device.

      systemd tries to address a lot of this by making what was a lot of different programs, still a lot of different programs, but a lot of different programs that know about systemd (aka having hooks into systemd). These hooks into systemd allow programs to notify the init program, which is a lot more advance than just calling scripts, to pass messages between programs. So if your program wants to play nice with systemd, it needs to be made systemd aware. This is the big things that has a lot of folks up in arms. So you modify your program to use systemd and then the systemd folks change something and now you have to change your program to match. This is called tightly coupled and in the past it was discouraged in *nix communities. The upside of being systemd aware is that you'll receive messages via dbus (it's a type of communications channel that allows one program to talk to another program, another way of doing this might have been internet sockets which is what you use when talking to a web server, or you might use UNIX sockets which looks a lot like internet sockets but happens within the kernel, there's also signals which are the most basic unit of interprocess communication (IPC), or a named pipe, etc... all of these have pros and cons I won't go into.) At any rate, you receive messages via dbus and those are timely and have a wealth of information. So if your program relies on there being an IP address of some sorts, you can actually ask systemd if you have one and to notify you when you do get one. Again, the downside of this is you're now at the mercy of systemd to not ever change how you go about doing that. Additionally, the systemd folk have been making a lot of commonly used programs "systemd aware", which means those core programs now rely on systemd. GNOME uses logind, to get you logged in, track your seat on the system, etc... logind is systemd aware, which means

    7. Re:Alpine by Hoover,L+Ron · · Score: 1

      Ok, thanks for the detailed explanation. I figured it was some sort of religious debate that delved into minutiae of the Linux subsystem of which I am blissfully unaware of.

    8. Re:Alpine by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There is something very strange about people who care more about philosophy than their computers actually being functional.

    9. Re:Alpine by houghi · · Score: 1

      You only have issues with Systemd? I have a bios, that tries to do everything, starting a bootloader that tries to do everything, launching a desktop manager that tries to do everything, so I can run a browser that tries to do everything so I can go to a website that tries to do everything. All that running on a processor that tries to do everything using a GPU that tries to do everything.

      They should have build on top of that philosophy. Using it as a base. They build around it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:Alpine by torqer · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

    11. Re:Alpine by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Remember the MCP (Master Control Program) in the original TRON movie? That's systemd in a nutshell...

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    12. Re:Alpine by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      I figured it was some sort of religious debate that delved into minutiae of the Linux subsystem

      Well it sort of does touch on a religious point in *nix systems. The mentality, the best I can describe it, is a million little gears. So you build a gear that does a single thing and you make that gear the best it can be at doing that one thing. This notion is typically called loosely coupled. Having a systemd aware program makes it tightly coupled to systemd which some would say goes against the loosely coupled philosophy of *nix. Remember systemd is more advanced and has dbus acting as a highway to move messages between systemd aware programs. So systemd can route notices from one program to another program, like when you close your lid, that notice gets placed in dbus. systemd sees the message and routes it to whatever has subscribed to that kind of notice. The power manager has done so and so will power down the machine. The task scheduler is subscribed to power manager messages and so knows to suspend tasks since the power manager sent a message. You get the idea. However, there's a lot of points in that chain for failure and because of how tightly coupled everything is, a break in one can be a break in all. Whereas a loosely coupled one, if there was a break in one, then it's just that one that's broken, not the whole dang thing. That's where you get some folks into some very hot debate. How much does one fail and when something fails? Just that thing fail or should the whole thing fail? Again, it's one of those, "there is no more correct answer" which is why it starts devolving into some religious debate.

      The idea of routing rich messages around subservices in Linux is neat and it's been one of those things long in the works. However, systemd does this and does it in a way that's... Well to understand you have to understand the difference between expressive and declarative.

      Expressive is like a simple MS Access macro that looks like a flow chart. There's some if-then stuff, but basically you don't really code anything, you just say "power manager will give off 'power down' messages and task scheduler will listen for 'power down' messages, when task scheduler receives 'power down' message, send 'shutdown' message to task scheduler." So it's pretty cookie cutter. "$program will give off message $message" "$program will listen for $message" "$program will do $task on $message" (and so on. And remember this isn't exact but gives you a high level understanding. The actual way systemd goes about it is with config files placed in specific directories to build these expressions.) Declarative is more like VBA code that a dumb macro might call. systemd offers "some" declarative (there is a point where systemd will actually run a shell script which in turn can call programs and have complex logic in it), which is why signals are good enough for say MySQL, but systemd really focuses on the expressive part. Expressive is easier to make a GUI for, declarative gives you a ton of flexibility to do things that are "outside the box". And that's where the tightness comes from, because when you make a program systemd aware, it needs to understand this expressive language that systemd provides. The mother systemd program (the big one that routes all the messages) already has a "dictionary" of expressive cookie cutters that it knows about, but if you need something specific to you in that expressive language, then you need to make mother systemd also aware of that new expressive cookie cutter, which asking systemd maintainers to add your specific cookie cutter to the dictionary is somewhere between a "yeah, why the fuck not?" to a "Hell, no. You want that you'll need to fork systemd, good luck with that." And touching on this in some mailing lists can start a flame for weeks on end. Some say getting a new thing in systemd is easy if the use is **well thought out**, there are some that say there is literally no rhyme or reason to what does and does not get into s

    13. Re:Alpine by jjbenz · · Score: 1

      Very nice explanation, thanks for taking the time to write that out.

    14. Re:Alpine by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      I assume you are also an Emacs user.

  9. Mint for me as well by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An interface that never changes? Yes please.

  10. WHAT? No Gentoo??? by halivar · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess I'll have to manually compile my own list...

    /duck
    /run

    1. Re:WHAT? No Gentoo??? by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      Have an imaginary funny mod point, as I have no real ones at the moment.....

    2. Re:WHAT? No Gentoo??? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the laugh. I haven't used gentoo in years, but I might need to go back to it at some point soon. I bet compiling it is soooo much faster on modern processors. I have yet to use an OS that was snappier and more responsive than my old gentoo installs.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    3. Re:WHAT? No Gentoo??? by crow · · Score: 1

      I still use Gentoo on my systems, but I'm increasingly worried as they seem to be struggling to keep all the packages current. I suspect the number of packages a distribution should have available is increasing over time, but the Gentoo community has shrunk, which is a dangerous combination.

      That said, having a source distribution makes running with local patches trivial. I also really like openrc, but I'll admit that that's in large part due to my extensive experience with it, so I really understand how it works.

    4. Re:WHAT? No Gentoo??? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      having a source distribution makes running with local patches trivial.

      It also makes building or developing non-distro software much simpler. With binary distros, you always run into the issue of installing "devel" packages of libraries if you need to compile against them. You may also need to worry about compilers -- I mean, who needs a compiler when you're only trying to "use" a system? But in practice you often need to compile stuff even if you're not developing it.

      Mac and Windows users may be used to this artificial separation between users and developers, so I have a hard time understanding why so many Linux distros strive for the same, by removing headers from library packages and entire compilers.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:WHAT? No Gentoo??? by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that Gentoo has settled into a core group of users who have been using it for years and its popularity percentage has stabilized at that level. My primary workstation has been Gentoo since 2004 (with an occasional emerge @world when I buy new hardware). In that time I've noticed on the forums a number of regular users who have been there as long as I have. I suspect a large number of those users are like me--engineers, software developers, and other folks with technical backgrounds who aren't afraid of compiling code and in fact like having all the libraries and sources right at hand. In other words, a bunch of graybeards (look at the slashdot user numbers on this sub-thread.)

      Other distributions have that artificial separation between users and developers because the vast majority of users aren't developers and don't care if the headers are present; most of them have no clue how to compile from source and don't care to learn. Most Linux distros implement that artificial separation precisely because that's how it works on Mac and Windows.

  11. Is this for real? by sammy_cda · · Score: 1

    I'm a Debian user so I like the results but 33% seems a little skewed? I'm surprised the Ubuntu/Mint distributions didn't have more votes.

    1. Re:Is this for real? by Junta · · Score: 1

      The question is the reachable audience for the poll. How many Linux users go to Linux Journal regularly? I know I don't and never have, and I've been using linux since kernel 1.2.x.

      Something about the audience correlates highly to the results they got. Which is intersting, but not particularly telling about the wider market.

      Objectively, the most prolific linux distribution is nearly certainly android, but doubt many people in that userbase care at all.

      Other distros may have more enthusiasm, but perhaps directed at a different community, one more aligned to given distributions or something like that.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  12. Best for what? by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It all depends on what I'm trying to do with it.

    Desktop, Laptop, Server, Router, DVR, NAS, Phone, IOT device?

  13. Different strokes for different folks by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see much to argue about. Different uses and different users have different needs and preferences. As sqorbit said, the question itself is silly. Like asking "what vehicle is best?" - kinda depends on whether you want to haul 10,000 pounds of cargo, race a slalom, or impress your date. Sometimes a semi truck is the right thing for the job, sometimes a motorcycle is.

    I run different distributions for different roles, and other people will prefer other distros for those same roles because they have different preferences. For example my "default" distribution for general computing is CentOS. One reason I choose CentOS is simply because it's the one I'm most familiar with, having used that lineage for 15 years under various names. Someone else might choose Debian or Ubuntu for the same reason - it's the one they know best.

    A major difference to consider for desktop / laptop use is whether you prefer cutting edge new features or stability and reliability. In the Redhat / CentOS realm, Fedora is cutting edge, Redhat / CentOS is stable. Neither is right or wrong, better or worse, it just depends on what you want. So instead of spending time trying to find "the best", spend that time asking "what are my needs and which fits my needs best?"

    1. Re:Different strokes for different folks by antdude · · Score: 1

      For me with other non-Linux OSes like Mac OS, iOS, Android, Windows, etc. They have their strong and weak points to me.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Different strokes for different folks by kzwork · · Score: 1
      That is why we have:

      Debian Stable

      Debian Testing

      Debian Unstable

      On top of that you can multiply these to 17 architectures + 4 non Linux kernels

      They are all Debian

  14. Ill-defined question. "Best for what purpose". by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The best Linux for
    • datacenter nework switches is probably Microsoft's SONiC distro.
    • cell phones is (god I hope it's not Android - but it's certainly not SONiC or Debian either.
    • servers running open source software is almost certainly Debian.
    • servers running closed source software (Oracle, etc) is probably Red Hat or some Canonical offering.
    • my laptop - Debian.

    Linux is in far too many places for "a" "best" distro.

    But it's not hard to pick candidates for the best for specific purposes.

  15. Mint's great for new users by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    My daughter is taking game programming and was struggling with working with Ogre and another graphics engine (I can't remember which one right now) and was struggling to do the builds on Win10.

    I pushed her onto Mint and she was able to get up and running in a few hours despite being very nervous about wanting to learn Linux. She's still scared of Ubuntu (my default) but she loves Mint.

  16. Best at what? by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Debian is a pessimized distribution. It's compiled for the worst possible case. It has a filesystem layout guaranteed to cause conflicts between packages and they've not bothered to resolve those except where it's "noticeable". The default disk layout is sub-optimal. It puts ideology over getting anything done.

    I'm not impressed by the others, either.

    Frankly, I'm horrified by the state of Linux distributions. That people voted Debian up is not a surprise, however, because nobody expects the best from their computers any more. I used to run three MUDs on a 16 MHz 386SX, in addition to a mail server, DNS server, modem pool and an instance of X. I could compile GateD or Perl in the background without interfering with anyone's work. Did it do less? Well, it had just as many fonts in LaTeX, so I could still do all the DTP that Libre Office can do. Admittedly, I couldn't WYSIWYG it but nobody does that with LaTeX anyway and anyone who does it for regular documents is paying far too much attention to presentation and not enough to content.

    (I forget where I saw the article on PowerPoint, but it argued that this emphasis on presentation was endangering R&D, promoting really bad ideas over much better ones, and was responsible for endangering the modern economy and several western democracies. Ok, maybe they overstated the threat to the economy, since you have to have one to endanger.)

    Modern Linux is not as fast because of poor design choices by distros. We have no Linux Desktop because of even worse design choices by distros.

    https://itvision.altervista.or...

    These problems are THEIR fault (and the fault of OSDL's closed-door meetings with vendors). Yes, in almost every respect, Windows is worse. But Windows has mindshare and enough money to afford to be worse. Microsoft should have been broken up in 1998 when it was ordered to do so by the courts, but the appeals court reversed that - probably under government pressure - and we have to live with the fact that we're competing against Sauron.

    And, yes, GET OFF MY LAWN!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Best at what? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      In terms of UI, it's kind of hard to say that Windows is worse than Linux. Almost every new Windows system is being shipped with Windows 10, which has a (more or less) consistent UI across the board.

      Someone used to using a Linux system with KDE is going to have some issues using LXDE or Gnome, though. The menus and control panels are pretty different.

      Sure, Windows totally screwed up their UI in Windows 8, but they learned from this mistake and haven't repeated it. If you take someone who's used to Windows XP or Windows 7, they should be able to find their way around Windows 10 without too many issues.

    2. Re:Best at what? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Modern Linux is not as fast

      Citation needed. The modern Linux kernel may have more in it and may require more resources to run, but KPTI aside Linux has never been faster. Aside from a few minor dips as some features are added without maturity Linux kernels have mostly seen slight speed improvements between versions, with a few introducing good step changes in performance improvements.

      What you're complaining about is the software that we expect to do more. That's not an OS issue.

    3. Re:Best at what? by houghi · · Score: 1

      We have no Linux Desktop because of even worse design choices by distros.

      No. The real reason is pre-installed systems. If there where pre-installed systems, people would buy them. People now use happily a Windows PC with an iPhone and an Android tablet at the same time and they have no issue with it. If their portable would be bought with Linux, they would use that and happily be using KDE, Gnome, Slack or anything else you trow at them.

      The people selecting their OS are a minority. Most people would ask you 'why?' if you tell them you do not run the default thing that was installed and you can try to explain it, but they will not care. It all sounds like hard work to them and they will visit the same websites, so why bother?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:Best at what? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Almost every new Windows system is being shipped with Windows 10, which has a (more or less) consistent UI across the board.

      Windows 10 is the LEAST consistent Windows UI ever. It's split between this Windows 10 interface and the traditional old windows system. Just take the control panel for example. Some settings are in this new UI model which is a rip off of the OS X system configuration and the other half are still a jumbled mess in control panel. In every version of Windows up until Windows 8 I probably would have agreed with you but it's an absolute mess now.

  17. Just a hunch, but by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I suspect people who are paid to do Linux system administration do not make up a significant percentage of Linux Journal's readership.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Just a hunch, but by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd imagine that professional sysadmins would mostly go for CentOS or RHEL, with handful going for Ubuntu or SUSE.

  18. Whatever magic Mint uses by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    It's working. Suse got me off Windows back in 2009 then I tried Mint a year later and been using it since and have had minimal hw/sw issues.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  19. Not a pro. But Deb's da best, no contest by cloud.pt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sharing my opinion: I think Debian is still king because of mostly 3 key areas it shines: simplicity, choice and community support.

    Ubuntu thrived for some years on Deb's back, as it brought its simplicity front and center, all wrapped up in tried and true UI choices with Gnome (2) and Xorg (eventually birthing its own now defunct attempts at GUI - Unity, and dserver - MIR), and they spiced it up by pulling a RedHat on the support part: "hey, we got all the good things of Debian 6 months later, bicuzz pro QA and commercial level polish yadayada". Choice was, barely, still there, through different flavoured ISOs ranging from GUI preference to architectures and whatnot, and naming each individually for branding purposes, something typical from consumer-grade software.

    It was well and good, until QA and polish stopped losing focus to marketing and stupid endeavours like dethroning Android or the tablet "market".

    Like many, I was the kind who believed [insert letter]Ubuntu-like flavouring was essential in a distro. But now, in all honesty, I believe there are exactly 3 separations a distro really, truly needs - to GUI or not to GUI (Desktop vs server/headless), net-install vs 5 DVDs with all the internet in 'em bicuzz Africa and pacific Islands; and obviously, if you can live without compiling (most of us do), architecture. Release-wise, there should still be LTS, stable and, well, straight-from-the-chunk, but those are a matter of politics involved and not exactly "static" choices, such as the afforementioned architecture, server/desktop-bound or www-availability. Debian follows all these principles, and packs each flavour with exactly what they need.

    The thing Debian makes best though is not their choice of flavouring, but the way they pass control onto you, the user. From the simply amazing installer:- you want a GUI? Pick from this not-so-verbose, yet essential list. You wanna continue this installation from ssh? Kewl, install ssh now, set up basic drivers, network and creds, and you're good to go. Do you want that graphical install instead? Maybe you want the ncurses one bicuzz you fancy them Nvidia GPUs which won't work until you can wget them from closedsource.nvidiacorp.bad.org ? Install gparted for all-you-can-eat partition choice. I'm not even getting on the REALLY advanced stuff.

    Systemd, grub, dpkg, so straightforward, no complications. Aptitude and that god-send APT. Debian has the tools to get everyone NOT thinking too hard on stuff like dependency management, but still make an effort, ever feeling in control if need be. Updating, and UPGRADING are a breeze, both for individual packages and the distribution itself. Unnatended, or even hot upgrades work as intended and crash much less than most others - something only achieved with a very deep level of organization on the core development. Migrations to new releases are easy. Migrations to new machines are feasible without dedicated backup tools (although they are great if you can get them configured properly), and even when you have a problem, it's usually recoverable with a Google search or 2.

    And the thing I love most about Debian, pretty much the same thing that makes me still love Windows: it doesn't fail on 95% the hardware people want to get it working. To y'all OS developers out there - packaging your distributions with the "bare minimum" of drivers is NOT that great a feature when you want your software to have the support a stable OS deserves (*cough* Archlinux*cough) - if you don't have a community large enough ABLE TO BOOT your OS effortlessly, there won't be a community to WANT to give back, and will end up with LACKING community support - read: death sentence in FOSS (well, unless you're RedHat).

    It's that simply really. If a critical mass doesn't get to even install your OS successfully, you won't ever get the traction you need for it to be mainstream. But hey, maybe that's not what you want...

    Getouttahere!

    1. Re:Not a pro. But Deb's da best, no contest by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Don't use a real distro like Fedora or RedHat. Then you'll know how bad debian is.
      I've been doing this for 40 years. I helped write code for the original Linux kernel and Reiserfs. In government, business I don't see debian almost without exception. I see RedHat all the time because it's way better.

      BTW, know that cool wifi software in debian? Yea, that was written by RedHat. Check out the source. So was most of all their other stuff.

      If you get Fedora, don't get the sucky gnome. Get Plasma. A real desktop.

    2. Re:Not a pro. But Deb's da best, no contest by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      Government use is not exactly gold standard these days. That's the same government using McAfee because "quality" and banning Kaspersky because "Russia".

      I won't ever downplay RedHat - I think what they do is amazing, and I think any institution needing professional Linux services needs to go to the best pros, and those are definitely them. Now for personal use - one that needs support fast (read: self-support), cheap (read: free), and the most stable, tweek-able, productive graphical environment (read: GNOME 3), Debian is surely where all of those boxes are ticked best. Fedora has solid Gnome3 support too, but it doesn't achieve Debian levels on everything else. And of course Debian has used RedHat contributions, that's what FOSS is all about. I've started this conversation by stating I'm not pro, but I will bet an arm and a leg that RedHat themselves have also used stuff from Debian, and I would bet at least 100 human lives that they surely used foss contributions not restricted to the Debian codebase. That's a really bad argument in the FOSS environment, and I don't need to check the code, although I could.

      I don't want to get in a Gnome vs KDE vs MINT and definitely not Deb vs RHEL/CentOS/Fedora argument. I think they all serve their purpose. I know Deb/Gnome works best for me, right now, and I know Deb will work best (for most, right now) because they really present the "full package" for the individual PC user - one that is balanced in the essential things the individual user needs. Deb is King of Personal Use Linux, just like Ubuntu was, for a time, not so long ago, (Debian is mosdef back tho).

      When such individuals do transition to corporate use, maybe then they should ponder things other than Deb - RHEL/CentOS/Fedora or even something else. But even then there is space for discussion - the overhead of transition itself might be reason enough to stay away from the thought, since Deb handles small and medium business purposes pretty dandy.

  20. no love for the enthusiasts. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ive noticed this poll does not take into account Linux enthusiast community activity and for that im truly offended. How can you enjoy a debian or fedora properly if you've never taken the time to learn and appreciate the minutia of linux?

    My personal setup --which i know slashdotters will find more than substantial in its refinement-- is a punch-card copy of Linux from Scratch operating on a 1986 Teddy Ruxpin with a custom 4.15 kernel, emulating the disk elevators from the 2.2 kernel, and of course operating within a Docker/Rancher/Kubernetes/Mom's spaghetti abstraction layer. Dont worry, I'm always keen to run the Ruby/node.js implementation of this kernel for mission critical applications such as my custom Teddy Ruxpin compiled drivers for the Ge Signa HD magnetic resonance imaging machine. Mouse support can be found in my Arduino/openRISC implementation using a small shopping cart packed with old Tamagochi's. as one would typically come to expect for performance, they run Go drivers sandboxed in a Rust framework. Teddy Ruxpin is, without a doubt, the only hardware true Linux fans should be using in 2018

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:no love for the enthusiasts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll have some of what he's smoking, but, say, a quarter of the dose?

    2. Re:no love for the enthusiasts. by halivar · · Score: 1

      That's great and all, but did you remember to grab legacy drivers for Voodoo3 and Aureal?

  21. SCO by bigdady92 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Every other distro is illegal.

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
  22. Best for what? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Best support?

    Best security?

    Best feature set (for what purpose?)?

    Best for non-technical users?

    Best for power users and/or developers?

    Most mature/robust?

    Highest performance?

    Best to know for getting a job?

    I use Mint for casual use and CentOS for heavy lifting. Mint because I like the interface and CentOS because having Red Hat skills is useful for finding and/or continuing employment. I'm sure that if my criteria were different my Linux flavor would be different also.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  23. why no RHEL? by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    was it a best free Linux poll?

    1. Re:why no RHEL? by Junta · · Score: 1

      RHEL doesn't exactly inspire 'enthusiasm'. It's whole raison d'etre is to provide solid environment without threat of unexpected disruptive technology. For example, the most recent RHEL is still producing an environment that resembles state of the art 4 years ago.

      The sort of people who are enthusiastic enough to be so proactive about it are going to be more impatient with the cadence than appreciative of the stability.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:why no RHEL? by cafelatte · · Score: 1

      I would think that those that wanted to vote for RHEL voted for CentOS. But it does look like a free linux poll. It also has openSUSE but no SUSE.

  24. Fedora by Xenolith0 · · Score: 1

    I use Fedora, because I like to spend hours fixing things every time I attempt a software upgrade.

    1. Re:Fedora by Xenolith0 · · Score: 1

      I've been using Fedora exclusively since 2009, my current install (which is cloned across multiple machines) was installed as Fedora 21, and updated through all the releases up to the current 27.

      I like Fedora, but it does break random shit on updates, and usually not due to rpm conflicts, though those are easy to fix.

      Going from 25 to 26, audio just stopped, and hours were spent learning way more about pulse audio than I ever cared to know.

      Going from 26 to 27 the DisplayPort output decided it no longer wanted to work on an AMD video card. Spent awhile researching that and eventually rolling a custom kernel until the fix made it to the official fedora kernel.

    2. Re:Fedora by kenh · · Score: 1

      Going from 25 to 26, audio just stopped, and hours were spent learning way more about pulse audio than I ever cared to know.

      Going from 26 to 27 the DisplayPort output decided it no longer wanted to work on an AMD video card. Spent awhile researching that and eventually rolling a custom kernel until the fix made it to the official fedora kernel.

      Sounds trivial and user-friendly to me...

      --
      Ken
    3. Re:Fedora by Barabul · · Score: 1

      I don't use Fedora too often, but I have a Fedora partition I try to keep up to date weekly or so, for testing stuff.

      Going from 25 to 26, Wayland stopped working. I was able to use X just fine. It fixed itself after a number of updates. Going from 26 to 27 was uneventful.

  25. Re:Ill-defined question. "Best for what purpose". by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    This is probably the better answer for my server use. In our environment, we have lots of closed source software like Oracle. In addition, the backup and monitoring software didn't work on non-Red Hat distos for many years. Since we're not a large team managing 1,200 servers now, consistency in the Unix environment is important too hence we have mostly (for current systems) Red Hat.

    And since I'm working on similar stuff at home, my home environment is CentOS for the most part with a few Red Hat systems.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  26. Let me put in a good word for Devuan by shoor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No systemd and it does all the things I want. In particular, it let's me run me-tv, which doesn't run well on ubuntu because of something to do with gui libraries. (Each side blames the other last I checked, which I admit was quite awhile ago.) Before Devuan, I had to run me-tv on Linux Mint, which is a very good distro (if you're comfortable with systemd, which I'm not.)

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  27. Power-point comment by Hasaf · · Score: 1

    I think the book you are trying to remember is this one: How PowerPoint Makes You Stupid: The Faulty Causality, Sloppy Logic, Decontextualized Data, and Seductive Showmanship That Have Taken Over Our Thinking – February 28, 2012 by Franck Frommer (Author), George Holoch (Translator).

    If you just google "PowerPoint Makes You Stupid" you will find a range of articles on the topic.

  28. best? by ohgary · · Score: 2

    This is an easy question. People make it way to complex. The best Linux is the one you like.

  29. Tried out something new on my newest Laptop ... by Qbertino · · Score: 2

    I got meself a refurbished ThinkPad X220 for college and portable web development, pimped it out with 8GB RAM and a 250GB SSD and thought I'd try something new off the beaten Debian/Ubuntu track.
    Manjaro i3 seemed like a nice candidate. And sure enough, it holds up nicely. Rolling updates (manjaro is arch based) and i3 is a very neat tiling WM that's really fast and nice and easy to configure. The manjaro i3 defaults are nice as is the turquoise on dark-grey design. Technical but still modern and sleek.

    Manjaro is the new kid on the block and might just be yet another passing distro-fad but for now it holds up and I'm enjoying it. yaourt is a CLI tool for installing non-standard packages and so far everything I've needed could be found on AUR.

    Bottom line: Wanna try something new with i3 as default? Yours truly recommends Manjaro i3. Give it a shot,

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  30. News for nerds by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    News for nerds, indeed. But does it matter?

  31. The best linux... by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 2

    It might be Mac OS X... Well if not that lets see how well it does what Mac OS X does:

    1) easy way from the startup disk/usb drive create a Mirror system(all partitions)
    2) easy way from the startup disk to install to a SSD/HD accelerated system
    3) easy way to get WIFI working
    4) easy way to get accelerated 2d/3d graphics working as good as Windows 10
    5) easy way to boot the thing from UEFI
    6) easy way to get chrome/Firefox to work
    7) easy way to get a known/modern Antivirus to work

    I am telling you the linux community is spinning it's wheels bitching about systemd/initd, iptables/firewalld, X/MIR and others when they should get the shit they have to work. VDI on VMware with windows is cake, remote usb works, remote 3d accelerated graphics, sound from the VM to the end station, linked clones and non persistent images. Doing it with Linux is a pain in the ass if not impossible.

    For servers centOS with Webmin makes configuring any UNIX/Linux machine the same or VERY similar. Webmin supports as tier 1 OSes Solaris, BSD and RedHat/CentOS.

    I like the fact that the year of the Linux desktop will be never. I am pleased to see Android on +2 billion devices. At one time in the win16/32 world you could never get a developer to look at any OS, they would say Windows outnumbers everything else 100 to 1. Now us Linux guys get to tell the Windows Developers that Android outnumbers Windows 100 to 1 and they better start learning Linux and Android soon...

    --
    Your Average Joe
    1. Re:The best linux... by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

      Good luck monetizing software on Android/Linux.

      --
      -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  32. Amazon by argee · · Score: 1

    I ordered from Amazon Distribution Network my "Penguin Stuffie" and placed it on my desktop.

  33. Re:Ill-defined question. "Best for what purpose". by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    I'd have to second this - for things that matter and where you don't want to be working 24/7, RH is your goto. I don't think I'd run Debian on anything that matters. Although I do miss my Sun boxes, throw them in a closet and forget about them for 10 years.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  34. For only certain values of "best" by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Overwhelmingly, most organizations, at least in the US, run RedHat, or one of its children, with, so far as I know, CentOS being the most-used.

    We were using RH at AT&T 9 yrs ago; where I work now, for a federal contractor (civilian sector) we have a few RH licenses... and the other 97% of our systems are CentOS.

    1. Re:For only certain values of "best" by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Yes. Debian is good for beginners maybe. Most beginners I teach use it and move on to Fedora fairly quickly. No prompting from me.

  35. Yeah, Slackware. by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

    For almost 20+ years of sysadmin work and IT direction, Slackware has been my Linux choice if I needed something quick, reliable and straightforward. If I went away from MacOS on the desktop, I have no doubt I'd be running Slack there again as well. Simplicity is a great thing.

    --

    Acquiescence leads to obliteration
  36. Re:Ill-defined question. "Best for what purpose". by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

    Out of interest, why do you prefer not to use Debian for serious matters?

    I ask as someone with not much experience using Linux - I run Mint on my laptop, and have a couple of Debian boxes running simple things like SpamAssassin and MySQL and Dovecot. I've found Debian to be perfectly acceptable to use and setup without a GUI, but it sounds like you have some deeper experience than me.

  37. Re:Ill-defined question. "Best for what purpose". by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    Fair question - number 1: I don't have to provide any justification for RH - they have enterprise support and are accepted by management because of contractual options (as in there are contracts with RH that dictate how things are supported, who's responsible, etc, all those business type things pure techies don't usually pay much attention to) Debian doesn't, at least not as of the last time I had to go through the process of getting a new installation and configuration approved. There's no need for #2, because that right there is the skyscraper you have to leap before any other regular hurdles pop up.

    FWIW, when I run Linux as a desktop I too choose Mint. I do not like RH/CentOS/Fedora for this purpose.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  38. Re:Ill-defined question. "Best for what purpose". by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

    Aha, yes, a good point. I hadn't considered any contractual or compliance issues, as the business I work for is far to small for it to be a real issue. I can definitely see how an OS that makes no guarantees or commitments and offer no lines of responsibility may be a big issue for some businesses.

    Thanks for answering my question.

  39. Re:Ill-defined question. "Best for what purpose". by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    Happy to. When you're rolling out projects above the 6 figure range all of a sudden those license agreements and support costs become minor compared to potential losses. Truth be told, it's a simple case of CYA - you used accepted and covered software and had no reason to expect something like 'x' to occur sounds a whole lot better to management then "well, this fly by night open source distro had this super cool widget we wanted to use and it seemed stable so...." You can tell which of those 2 cases results in someone unintentionally looking for a new job, as in projects of that size you're paid to mitigate risks, not increase them.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.