Linux Poll

[nkk]

I noticed that there were a lot of people using Linux around here, so I was just wondering about what you prefer.

Since an actual poll cannot handle all the choices, just post your favorite distro and desktop environment/window manager/whatever else you modded.

Thanks
Nkk

EDIT: I should probably add mine.

Ubuntu w/GNOME
various others that I have booting for various reasons but which are not my main one. I have straight up Debian on here, along with Fedora and some others.

I just finished the USB boot disk for Arch Linux, and I have decided that will go on my desktop and be my playground. My laptop needs to work the way I want it to with no downtime. The desktop can get a fresh install of a new OS every week and I do not care. Also, I want to find a better window manager.

 

[ak89]

distro: Arch Linux
wm: Xmonad

 

[MoodyBlues]

Kubuntu. Currently still running 9.10 on all my computers; tried 10.04 on one last year, but downgraded back to 9.10.

I also like, and occasionally switch to just for fun, IceWM and XFCE (window managers). I always install Gnome, too, but rarely switch to it.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

I run Ubuntu 10.04 on my main machine w/ Gnome and I use the Solaris NIMBUS theme because it looks clean/corporate. I stick w/ LTS (Long Term Support) releases for work reasons.

I also run 10.10 on my dev machine and virtual machines off my macbook pro.
My wife runs Linux Mint 10. My son run LinuxforKids/Qimo
I run Linux Mint 10 on one of my netbook.

I run Redhat 5.3 Enterprise at work.

I develop w/ Ubuntu 10.04 JeOS (barebone Ubuntu system) for Virtual Appliances and build from there. I like JeOS because I can keep it down to 300-800 MB and they're easy to move to virtual bare metal servers. They're all console mode (no x11/gnome/window). All my new servers will be JeOS Ubuntu.

And on my Android phone, I'm installing Debian Lenny. I'm working on the X11 for my DROID.

 

[baillou2]

I run Ubuntu 10.10 with gnome. I have openSUSE in a virtual machine, but that's just to mess around.

One day I'd like to give Arch a try, but I only have one little old laptop and I need it to be my go-to computer since it's my only one.

 

[Frisco]

Vector breathed new life into an old Gateway 2000 PC I've had sitting around here. That thing came with Windows 98 on it, and ran slow on ME for a while 'til I started running various Linux flavors.

Settled on Vector about a year ago.

I've got a spare drive for this Toshiba laptop that runs PCLinuxOS.

 

[baillou2]

Incidentally has anyone here ever tried out a System 76 machine. They're the ones built with Ubuntu preinstalled, but you can run whatever distro you want of course. There is hardly anything on the internet pertaining to them and only about 3 reviews done on youtube.

I'm really interested because from what I gather they are top of the line machines that are well integrated a la macbook (but without looking like them )

They seem a bit pricey, but I'm seriously considering their Lemur ultra-thin model.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Ubuntu 10.10 w/ Unity netbook remix
Ubuntu 11.04 w/ Unity desktop

 

[NightHawk877]

I run Ubuntu 10.10, Slackware and Gentoo in order of heaviest use in a virtual machine on my laptop with a Windows 7 host. I multiboot those on my desktop because it can't run VMs. I have a dedicated hard drive for Windows, but my Linux distros share a drive.

 

[nkk]

I have considered System76 before. I did not becuase at the time they did not have the Lemur, and that is what I wanted (ssh into desktop to do anything processor heavy). From what I gather, they are not that tightly integrated. They just only use components that have fully working and stable Linux drivers. MacBooks are tightly integrated in that the OS and drivers is built around the hardware, which is why when you make a hackintosh you need a specific type of motherboard or whatever for it to fully work. Sys76 is the other way around.

Either way, my next computer may very well be from them.

-Nkk

 

[Bob Cat]

Dual drives Win 7 64 on one and Ubuntu 10.10 64 on the other.

 

[mikedt]

My netbook is running Linux Mint 10 as the sole OS, Gnome desktop. I've found there is no need for Windows to be on here as well, so I deleted it.

I also experiment with various Linux distros in VirtualBox on my Macbook Pro, self education, see what they're like, see what works and what does not.

 

[dots]

I tried alot of distros (openSUSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc) and i always found myself going back to Linux Mint. I recently decided to go give Arch Linux a try. And it has now become my favorite distro. Took me upwards of ~12 hours to get it up and running. (This includes downloading updates, downloading gnome, installing nvidia drivers.etc ) The longest part was actually downloading updates/gnome. It was also a great learning experience for me as well.

Distro: Arch Linux
Gnome for now, going to go to KDE soon.

 

[HKM]

Been using *nix for past 11+ years here.

Linux: Slackware, SuSE, Debian
Unix: BSD, Solaris, AIX

lol @ Ubuntu and Kurbuntu BS, pure Opt Lynx for life.

 

[baillou2]

I tried alot of distros (openSUSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc) and i always found myself going back to Linux Mint. I recently decided to go give Arch Linux a try. And it has now become my favorite distro. Took me upwards of ~12 hours to get it up and running. (This includes downloading updates, downloading gnome, installing nvidia drivers.etc ) The longest part was actually downloading updates/gnome. It was also a great learning experience for me as well.

Distro: Arch Linux
Gnome for now, going to go to KDE soon.

What do you like about Arch that puts it above the rest? I hear good things, but I don't get what all the hurray is about since I've never used it. Maybe I can get it up and running in a VM but that doesn't seem worth it. I'd rather have it right on the hard drive.

I hear KDE 4.6 is the shiznit.....

 

[bluenova]

Used to use Red Hat then Fedora Core when that started in 2003. Moved to Ubuntu in 2005 and fell in love with DEB over RPM and dependency hell. I've dabbled with lots of other distros in-between but for day to day computing where I need to actually work rather than spend ages compiling things, any Debian based distro will rock my boat. I'm currently using Mint because it looks 'pretty' but really any DEB based distro will do me.

 

[ludeawakening]

Well I guess Ubuntu 11.04 with Gnome desktop running Compiz Fusion and all of the Ubuntu Studio 10.10 add on's is my favorite for every day use. Backtrack 4 R2 is definitely my favorite for "OTHER STUFF" haha. Arch is okay because it is a minimal, simple and straight forward distro. I like playing around with all the different ditros as well though. Symphony OS is awesome to play around with. It has an awesome desktop but it's hard to getting running right because of the lack of hardware support. Red Hat is the "get your hands dirty Linux." It takes some pretty good knowledge of terminal use to really take advantage of it. And then of course there is DSL (Damn Small Linux), which you could pretty much run on a calculator because it's so small, but still get the job done. Needless to say I just like Linux.

 

[ExSaint]

Open SUSE 11.3

 

[PSkeptic]

I use:
* Ubuntu on one laptop
* Xubuntu on my netbook
* Ubuntu Server on two VM's
* CentOS on my Asterix box
* AIX at work

Used to use Red Hat then Fedora Core when that started in 2003. Moved to Ubuntu in 2005 and fell in love with DEB over RPM and dependency hell. I've dabbled with lots of other distros in-between but for day to day computing where I need to actually work rather than spend ages compiling things, any Debian based distro will rock my boat. I'm currently using Mint because it looks 'pretty' but really any DEB based distro will do me.

You should give CentoOS/Fedora Core another try. Yum has resolved most of the RPM dependency hell. It's basically on par with Apt now

 

[nkk]

What do you like about Arch that puts it above the rest? I hear good things, but I don't get what all the hurray is about since I've never used it. Maybe I can get it up and running in a VM but that doesn't seem worth it. I'd rather have it right on the hard drive.

I hear KDE 4.6 is the shiznit.....

I cannot speak for dots, but I am really starting to like arch linux. It is not inherently better, but it starts out with no desktop or anything. It allows you pretty much full customization from the start, whereas things like Ubuntu say "start with this, this, and this, and then customize later". I view arch as a step up for the experience user, as it says "you know what you want, now install it". Also, it is extremely well documented. It is minimalist at first, but it is not a situation where you get a kernel and then you compile the rest. It gives you a base, and then has really good instructions and explanations on how to make it what you want.

I have not used it enough to play around with the technical aspects of it, but those are my impressions from a day or two of tinkering and playing. Real time on it will not come for a while as I am busy, but I plan to keep it on my desktop for some time.


-nkk

 

[mrspeedmaster]

I cannot speak for dots, but I am really starting to like arch linux. It is not inherently better, but it starts out with no desktop or anything. It allows you pretty much full customization from the start, whereas things like Ubuntu say "start with this, this, and this, and then customize later". I view arch as a step up for the experience user, as it says "you know what you want, now install it".

Ubuntu has a bare/base system install. I do it all the time. Hit F4 at the Live-CD prompt and install the JeOS (Just Enough OS). This will give you the kernel, GNU apps, and bare-bone system. You can add the GUI (X11/GDM/Gnome) and all the services later on.

 

[dots]

What do you like about Arch that puts it above the rest? I hear good things, but I don't get what all the hurray is about since I've never used it. Maybe I can get it up and running in a VM but that doesn't seem worth it. I'd rather have it right on the hard drive.

I hear KDE 4.6 is the shiznit.....

I liked how it came with pretty much nothing but a basic kernel and CLI. Learning wise it was great. Such as getting the nvidia driver setup (installer didnt work the first 10 times ). Getting sound to work properly. Getting it to see my phones sdcard . Stuff like that. Great learning experience. I like "pacman" (arch's package management system) as well as the AUR (Arch User Repository). As stated above it also has a GREAT wiki and documentiaon. Performence wise it ran very smooth and fast on first install and even after setting up my android and gaming enviorment, and tons of other programs it still runs amazingly smooth.

But the ability to have to configure things cause they didnt work out of the box like say in ubuntu, suse and things like adb, sdcard, sound, etc makes me feel accomplished but thats just the nerd in me.

 

[nkk]

Ubuntu has a bare/base system install. I do it all the time. Hit F4 at the Live-CD prompt and install the JeOS (Just Enough OS). This will give you the kernel, GNU apps, and bare-bone system. You can add the GUI (X11/GDM/Gnome) and all the services later on.

That is good to know. Ubuntu was what got me into Linux, so I never probed it really deep. I know what I am doing next.

Thanks,
Nkk

On a different note, if anyone wants to help someone who has never played with any type of networking set up a squid server for logging of requests and access control for a home wireless network, please PM me.

 

[MoodyBlues]

But the ability to have to configure things cause they didnt work out of the box like say in ubuntu, suse and things like adb, sdcard, sound, etc makes me feel accomplished but thats just the nerd in me.

I'm the opposite. After 25+ years of using *nix, starting back before GUIs existed and everything was done at a command line with cryptic commands, I actually enjoy the simplicity of today's Linux. I no longer have anything to prove. I'm a total geek, I know it, everyone who knows me knows it, so I don't even feel guilty that I no longer care about getting my hands dirty deep inside the innards of my OS.

Now, that's not to say that I do everything the 'easy' way. There's no comparison in terms of speed and efficiency when it comes to certain tasks done at the command line vs GUI. For example, any type of file manipulation--renaming hundreds of files, changing permissions recursively, mass editing dozens of text files, cropping or otherwise manipulating thousands of images, etc.--I always choose CLI over GUI.

For me, choosing [K]Ubuntu--after 20 years of trying many other Linux distros--doesn't mark me as someone unable to deal with grittier distros and, frankly, I think it's kind of funny that some people make that assumption. I choose Kubuntu because I like it, not because I don't know my way around, or am too afraid of, less user friendly distros. I just don't see the point any more! I LIKE being able to wipe windoze off a new computer and have Linux up and running, with EVERYTHING working, including wi-fi and networking and printing, in 12-15 minutes. That simplicity has also made my mission of converting as many people as possible to Linux a LOT easier.