What's the best Linux distro?

Post Reply New Topic

Or install VMware, and you can just download an image of a fully configured install, and boot it right up, no installation or configuration needed at all.

Because I have finite disk space and each new operating system takes literally gigabytes of overhead. I do use VirtualBox to try out the ones that look interesting enough. So far I've looked at Ubuntu, Debian, openSUSE, Knoppix, and xubuntu.

I thought xubuntu would be nice in VirtualBox because it can use Ubuntu's repositories, but has less overhead in both memory use and disk space. However, it was too hard to configure properly. I also couldn't figure out how to setup Debian to do anything.

Four a dual-boot OS, I'm currently leaning towards Kubuntu 64-bit. (I tried out KDE with Knoppix and openSUSE and I think I like it better than GNOME.) I didn't think SUSE's Yast2 and rpms are as good as or as easy to use as ubuntu's packages and repositories. I've also heard bad things about rpms, especially compared to Debian packages.

Ideally I'd like my OS to be 64-bit (I think), easy to configure, powerful, capable, dependable, and have huge repositories with a package manager that makes it easy to both install and uninstall packages. So far Kubuntu64 is the closest to that ideal. I still think that it could be easier to configure (I think Knoppix does a little better there). And I don't think uninstalling packages is easy enough. I think it should be possible to quickly remove the dependencies that are no longer needed that the package you are uninstalling added, but I don't know of any distro that does that, do you?

I'm afraid you're losing me here, a bit.

"Each new operating system takes literally gigabytes of overhead" - not overhead, they take space. Yes. These days, a 120Gbyte HDD is pretty typical, so a couple of dozen OSes? Do you really want to try that many simultaneously?

I don't know what you mean by a "dual boot OS".

I don't know what you mean by "Ideally I'd like my OS to be 64-bit (I think)". If you haven't got 64-bit hardware, it's meaningless. The Linux kernel has been available as 64-bit since 64-bit started. Some apps may be more or less capable of exploiting 64-bit hardware. If no one has bothered to rebuild a binary package, you may need to do so yourself (or use a source-based distro).

"Removing dependencies" is an old chestnut. There really isn't a "one size fits all" solution. I tend to just not worry about that. I do some housekeeping, occasionally, when I can be bothered.

Yes, lau, space is one kind of overhead. So each virtualized OS I run at the same time takes more memory (active and disk), bandwidth, cpu cycles etc. which could easily add up to gigabytes with the disk space alone. When they're not actually running, it's just the disk space. That's assuming an empty disk. I've already used most of mine. (and I want to leave enough for defragmenting) I'll clarify: A second operating system in addition to the one I already have and use (Windows XP in my case), which I would use by dual booting. You already mentioned multibooting, so I thought that would be apparent from the context, but I could have made that more clear. That's what I mean. I don't know if the advantages of a 64-bis OS outweigh the disadvantages. I have an Intel Core 2 Duo, which I think is 64-bit hardware. I'm not sure if a 64-bit OS is completely backwards compatible with 32-bit software (especially drivers, which can be a pain in Linux anyway.) If backwards compatibility is an issue it might not be worth it to have a 64-bit OS when most applications can't take advantage of it anyway. If all the software works and If I can run it on my hardware, then yes, it's a no-brianer. I might as well use a 64-bit OS because it has advantages, but no disadvantages.

I put it in my ideal features list because it could help to easily rule out distro's that don't support it yet (like Slackware.)
Old chestnut? I must be unfamiliar with that idiom, because I have no idea what that means. But there are solutions? I would be interested to know what they are (Especially if some could be easily applied to Kubuntu.)

I can run 64 bit on several machines but found that hardware detection was a pain. stick with 32 bit.

What's "defragmenting"? (smug grin)

When people talk about "64 bit OS" it's only for AMD's 64 bit processors. Core 2 Duos are not 64 bit. They're just two 32 bit chips on one die. A 64 bit OS probably won't run on a Core 2 Duo. You want 32 bit. It doesn't matter anyway, the performance will always be the same, the 64 bit OS will just give you more problems with software not working like it should.

Are you sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Intel_64

Anyway, if I do stick with 32-bit that opens up some other possibilities. Has anyone tried LinuxMint, MEPIS, or PcLinuxOS?

Wrong. They run just fine. I have the intel D chip and ubuntu 64 works just peachy. Other than hardware detection.

Mints really nice, but its just ubuntu with a wrapper.

I just installed Ubuntu Studio on my laptop, and I am shock, wifi is actually working, took a little while for me to figurer out how to set it up, but its working better then the XP Home I had on it, I seem to have about 1/2 hr more battery life, and it is able to see my media server though wireless which is great. I am able to play all my media files, and haven't had any problems getting codecs to install, now all I need is to get goggle earth to work, tried to download the file but can seem to get it to install

Hey, spudnik! Don't do that! Install googleearth from the medibuntu repository.

You get all the extra codecs from there, as well. Mplayer, Amarok and Skype, too.

If you want simplicity, then you could try XandrOS...

DSL because its tiny and can run on computers i`m temporarily working on via flash drive.

For a Main Computer though i pick Ubuntu.[I like the desktop]

Does anyone run a CLI only OS?

Well... currently, I have a puny laptop, with Slackware, plain CLI on it.

(I got bored with it, and haven't gone back to load X onto it.)