Which Linux

**doc_bean** · 10-02-2006, 19:33

I'm probably going to need to install Linux again pretty soon, so which version should I use ? A few years ago I used Red Hat, but there seem to be some new popular versions these days. What are the advantages/disadvantages of these ?

**Lemur** · 10-02-2006, 19:58

I've been hearing a lot of positive geek buzz around Ubuntu Linux, but I have no personal experience, so don't go believing me.

Here's a comparison of several Linux distros. No idea if it's accurate.

I guess I should shut up now, since my only experience was a short fling with Fedora.

**_Martyr_** · 10-02-2006, 20:08

I use SUSE and find it very very good. On the other hand, as Lemur pointed out Ubuntu is getting a lot of attention at the moment. Ive never actually installed this distro myself, ive only seen it used on a friend's machine, but it seemed like a highly recomendable choice as well. Depends a lot on personal preference, so it might be a good idea to try several distros out and use whichever you like best!

**Xiahou** · 10-02-2006, 20:55

I use Mandrake (now Mandriva) and am perfectly happy with it. I installed it a couple years ago, when v10 came out and it still runs fine.... just passed 90days uptime again- I had to turn if off to clean out dust.

**tibilicus** · 10-02-2006, 23:01

Ubuntu is your best bet for an easy to use Linux aswell as the most popular.

Tib

**Blodrast** · 10-02-2006, 23:54

It depends what you're gonna use it for.
In my experience, updating has always been an issue, and while it's gotten better lately, not all distros work flawlessly in this respect.
If ease of updating is important to you, and you think you might need to update rather often, then you should prolly consider debian or ubuntu. Otherwise, a more user-friendly installation might be better for you. However, be aware that some of these user-friendly things are actually quite obnoxious, to outright stupid. I've had bad experiences while trying, out of curiosity, some redhat installing "features". While user-friendly, they don't offer you all the possibilities that the less user-friendly ones do.
Again, this is only important if you plan to (re)install your distro often enough - if you only do it once every 2-3 years, it's likely a non-issue.

**hoom** · 10-03-2006, 13:33

I finally got around to re-trying linux over the weekend, I chose Ubuntu, partly because it was near the top of some list & partly because I'd heard someone talking about it somewhere...

So, yeah linux has come a fair way in the last few years :)
I'm actually pretty chuffed, was less of a fuss getting it up & running than Win XP.
Getting ATI drivers working however was much more frustrating & somewhat scary, read a bunch of HOWTOs & copy/paste various (& completely over my head) commands into console & hey presto!

Apparently the ATI drivers will ~auto install on SUZE and one other distribution but its console city for Ubuntu :(

Next thing I need to get working is to convince the thing to actually play DVDs/other video media.
Oh & I understand there is some flashy 3d accelerated (vista/OSX-ish) GUI available (or probably by now about 5 different development branches)

**caravel** · 10-04-2006, 11:58

I mostly gave up on Linux back in 2004. Basically due to the poor ATI drivers, bugginess, horribly awkward GUI's such as KDE and Gnome or featurless prehistoric stuff like windowmaker or blackbox/fluxbox. Add to that the annoyance of dual boot which means that if I'm booting into XP anyway to run STW/MTW/RTW then why should I reboot into Linux to do everything else? Mandrake (Mandriva) I've always found buggy and overweight. The "Mandrake Control Centre" being one of my pet hates. Why create crap tools such as these if you're still going to have to open a console window and enter lengthy commands. Ubuntu I could never get to install, it simply hangs at the partioning part of the setup (I left it for 30 minutes then gave it the three fingered salute, and used the disc as a frisbee).

If you're setting up a PC as an internet gateway or webserver then I can understand it, but as a desktop home OS Linux just doesn't cut it.

**doc_bean** · 10-04-2006, 12:34

Originally Posted by Caravel

If you're setting up a PC as an internet gateway or webserver then I can understand it, but as a desktop home OS Linux just doesn't cut it.

I have to work with code that apparently gets a little crazy under windows (Linux specific programs FTL !) so I don't really have a choice. I did enjoy having Linux a few years back, but since you always have to have a windows partition anyway I eventually got rid of it all together.

**LeftEyeNine** · 10-07-2006, 21:07

I read that a long time die-hard Slackware fan just gave it up for Arch Linux. Maybe you, so-geek-to-deal-with-linux people may want to give it a try.

**Xiahou** · 10-08-2006, 08:57

Originally Posted by Caravel

I mostly gave up on Linux back in 2004. Basically due to the poor ATI drivers......

I had always heard that way back when, ATI was very stuckup about giving the Linux community any support for creating drivers. I think it resulted in alot of bad blood for the hardcore Linux people- I wouldnt be suprised if that might have something to do with spotty ATI drivers for Linux even today.

For the record, I love KDE. If it wasn't for high-end gaming and the still persistent need to use IE on rare occasions, I think I could pretty much do all my computing on it.

**caravel** · 10-11-2006, 17:12

Well conicidentally I've decided to dig Ubuntu out again today and install it on a separate HDD. This avoids me having to mess about restoring the windows bootloader if it all goes a bit pear later.

If it wasn't for TW games then I could easily get on without Windows.

-Update: Forget that, there goes another frisbee! I really give up, the same old problem with my monitor's refresh rate stuck at 60hz, setting the exact ranges does nothing, and setting slightly above gives an out of sync.