Why should I switch from Ubuntu to Sabayon Linux?

Post Reply New Topic

Or any other linux? Looking for an intelligent comparison of features.

Well that's the thing... there's not really any major differences between the major linux flavors. It's more of which packages do you want on there, and which do you want to have to install?

Ubuntu comes in a choice of UI's from the install, and that is something I've noticed is lacking with the other distros. So you don't have to uninstall whatever UI was already on it, put your fave on, then have to troubleshoot why the bloody thing isn't working.

But as far as a true difference, everything comes in .rpm or .deb versions, so there's not any difference when you're done installing.

Thats what I am thinking, yes. The question brings to mind "why all the l33tness?"

Plus, if i ever find a really novel distro, that wont be so bad!

I tried Sabayon briefly and didn't like it. Sure, the default theme is sexier than Ubuntu's, but who leaves the defaults anyways? On technical grounds, it has worse hardware support, is not as actively developed or supported as Ubuntu, and makes you do a ton of package management before you install the system, defaulting to "install every single freaking package in the repos, including Skype and other proprietary garbage." It doesn't have a very active community, as it's basically Gentoo for n00bs, and Gentoo is not for n00bs.

Debian seems faster than Ubuntu, and not much harder to work with. It's also more stable if you don't mind being a bit behind the bleeding edge.

A lot of experienced users swear by Arch. Dunno why, as I've never touched it.

I myself am considering an adventure in Fedora. It's supposed to have a much stronger emphasis on security, and it would be good for me to gain a background in the Red Hat style after my time in the Debian Way. Torvalds runs Fedora, so I'm assuming it won't be complete crap.

I'd recommend against OpenSUSE. I've tried it several times, and it's sucked horribly every single time.

Not true. Slackware, Gentoo, and Arch forgo .rpm and .deb. I would say, however, that all the distros that appear to actually be usable for general use computing seem to be either rpm or deb.

Because software that actually works is for n00bs, and you wouldn't want to be a n00b, would you?

I meant the packages come in those formats, and you can get compilers to use them on most systems.

And yes, OpenSuSE is complete crap. We had a rig at work, most horrid comp ever. And of course cool boss swore by that OS... kept calling me n00b for using Ubuntu.

I think its an interesting topic.

If Ubuntu is just as good as the others in the end(and quite possibly better supported), and its better in the beginning(for newbies), then it bodes ill for the alternates, doesn't it?

If you wash all the rhetoric and hype away, There is no real reason to switch.

That would be the heart of the question. The reason most people choose one flavour over another is because they learned it and know it. It's much the same reason people won't be leaving windows anytime soon, it's familiar.

Yeah, you can be a Linux haxor just as well under Ubuntu as under Gentoo.

Ooh, here's a Torvalds quote on what distro he uses.

"I've used different distributions over the years. Right now I happen to use Fedora 9 on most of the computers I have, which really boils down to the fact that Fedora had fairly good support for PowerPC back when I used that, so I grew used to it. But I actually don't care too much about the distribution, as long as it makes it easy to install and keep reasonably up-to-date. I care about the kernel and a few programs, and the set of programs I really care about is actually fairly small.

And when it comes to distributions, ease of installation has actually been one of my main issues - I'm a technical person, but I have a very specific area of interest, and I don't want to fight the rest. So the only distributions I have actively avoided are the ones that are known to be "overly technical" - like the ones that encourage you to compile your own programs etc.

Yeah, I can do it, but it kind of defeats the whole point of a distribution for me. So I like the ones that have a name of being easy to use. I've never used plain Debian, for example, but I like Ubuntu. And before Debian people attack me - yeah, I know, I know, it's supposedly much simpler and easier to install these days. But it certainly didn't use to be, so I never had any reason to go for it. "

I experimented years ago when Red Hat became popular. I tried to install it and it didn't like my hardware. I downloaded Mandrake linux and it worked. Well, I never really did much with it and lost interest in linux until last year.

During the course of a conversation between a fellow techie and I on a job site, he mentioned some really neat things he had been doing with Ubuntu - which I had never heard of.

Eventually I went to their site, got interested, downloaded, and installed it. I also installed Fedora on a thumbdrive. After experimenting around a bit and asking lots of questions I ended up installing it on the kids computer. I was fairly impressed. Now I run all 3 PCs in the house on Ubuntu. On my laptop I have a dual boot setup with Ubuntu and Windows XP. There are imitations, but for a free operating system I'm quite happy with it.

For most basic functions that my wife and kids would use its great. They can browse the web, email, watch movies, play games, use Open Office just like they did before. Even my 7 year old figured out how to change the desktop background and how to change the font size in the file browser.

For me I like the control I have over the network and the ease (once you figure it out) in implementing it. Its easier to setup shared folders than Windows. Remote desktop comes in handy for all of the computers as well. I resurrected an old Dell as a server. I love how efficiently linux seems to use resources. You can have Vista-like effects on a computer that Vista would never run on!

I'm still learning various commands in the shell. And some things are just a pain to change compared to Windows, but again, its free and a work in progress - keyword being progress. I like the fact that it is user friendly enough to do everyday tasks and yet also has other features that appeals to the geek in me, so for now Ubuntu is the way to go for me.

All I can say is try it. If you don't like it you can install something else. Heck, you can run it right off the CD without installing it if you like. That way you can get a feel for it and experiment a bit - you just can't really save anything or make changes.

Which Linux distro is best for people who want to use programs such as photoshop or other windows compatible programs?

Try the GIMP. It's a free alternative to Photoshop that should be in any distro. Go to http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html to find a slightly out-of-date but still useful listing of Linux alternatives to Windows programs. You could try running the Windows-only programs in WINE, but I haven't had much luck with it.

As far as what distro, any distro will handle GIMP and all the rest, but Ubuntu is widely considered to be among the best distros, if not the best, especially for new users. I've heard positive things about Mint, which is basically Ubuntu with a better-looking default theme and more proprietary codecs and drivers installed by default.

Unless you are dead set on a linux, have a look at reactOS, a open source rebuild of windows xp.

Why don't you try out Mepis 8? It is based on Debian Lenny and uses KDE 3.5x. Beats bloated buggy Ubuntu, who seem to be going the microsoft way . I think it uses 2.6.27 kernal, while Lenny uses 2.6.26. It's pretty easy to set up from what I understand. It's much more stable than ubuntu, but if you like a bloated and buggy OS, then stick with ubuntu.