Ubuntu is easy and has a lot of packages.
Arch is good if you want a lot of control over your system. This is what I currently use.
Fedora is good for ENTERPRISE systems.
>>2
Real men don't use computers. They run Plan 9 on their minds
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-15 3:16
Ubuntu is sucky and has tons of local patches, so a lot of its packages are hideously inconsistent with upstream.
Arch is great, it's like Slackware with an actual package system. It's kind of funny how 4chan comprises like half of its userbase.
Fedora is overbuilt crap.
Slackware used to be awesome, but Arch has kind of filled that slot for me. Nowadays it's undermaintained... when Pat dropped Gnome it should've been a hint that perhaps someone else should be taking over. It's lost its shine as the "I know what I'm doing, dammit" distro.
FreeBSD is a good system, in a nostalgic sense. Getting hardware to run on FreeBSD makes me feel like I've been transported back to Linux in 2000 or so. You can probably get it to work, but it's not idiot proof and doesn't try to be.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-15 3:28
The GNU license makes me RAAAAGE and so does RMS.
The freeBSD license makes me jism.
therefore i prefer the latter
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-15 3:40
>>4
I've experienced hassles getting FreeBSD or its derivatives to install, too. (Apparently, FreeBSD doesn't work well with SATA DVD drives, yet.)
Does 4chan really like Arch that much? I feel like I'm in better company already. ;)
I use Gentoo. It's easy to get Ebuilds around a program's compilation process allowing me to (relatively easily) get the latest and greatest of all the programs that I care about.
Yes, I use Gentoo. So? I dont see any problem. I embraced my Gentoo distro long ago and I am happy together with my workstation (that is a stage 1 box!). I have a fucking lot of ebuilds in and outside of portage and my CFLAGS are pretty optimized and solid.
But thanks anyway asshole. Go and use your stupid Debian while I EMERGE new ebuilds.
LFS, while Mistress whips and/or sodomizes me, generally while having me wear a leash, collar, girly clothes and make-up. (I avoid getting urinated on while using LFS as it might cause issues with the electronics. A shame, really.)
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-15 9:41
I use Windows 2008 because Linux is for retards.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-15 10:12
>>17
3/10. I cannot use this for quality pasta. It's too bland.
>>4,6
I've never had any problems installing FreeBSD, but arguably most of my hardware is fairly dated anyway. Comparatively, installing Windows XP/Vista was more of a pain and didn't work without fetching drivers (for annoying things, like ethernet adapters).
I will concede that FreeBSD has some pretty sharp edges. But what the fuck, we're the technocracy, there shouldn't really be an issue about that. People who want an OS-for-idiots can use Udubando. People who want near-linear SMP scalability can use FreeBSD.
I should try ArchLinux one of these days.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-15 17:00
FUCK I INSTALLED KUBUNTU AND IT KEEPS ASKING ME FOR MORE RAM EVEN THOUGH I HAVE 3GB WHAT DO I DO NOW
Slackware.
Stop crying about packages. Hack your own program to download buildscripts from slackbuilds.org and build packages automagicaly (or use sbopkg or something).
>>37
Switch to Arch. It's heaps better than Debian.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-16 1:19
>>38
I agree, the rolling release thing is really, really nice. You could get an Arch install disk from 2002, and then upgrade it with "sudo pacman -Syu". For a server, Arch might be too bleeding-edge, but for a workstation that's not usually a problem.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-16 6:56
I'm currently using Ubuntu. I'm thinking of trying Arch, but I don't want to spend hours configuring trivial stuff.