>Gentoo
if you want to build from source
>Arch
if you want all the latest packages at the potential expense of stability
>Debian
if you want rock solid stability at the expense of updated packages
>Fedora
if none of the above apply
There is absolutely no reason why any other distros need to exist. Why can't developers focus on these distros and make them good rather than making thousands of shitty forks
>Why can't developers focus on these distros and make them good rather than making thousands of shitty forks
Because they're autistic hobbyists.
Any real developers long ago switched to Macs so they could get some work done.
>fedora
fedora is the testbed for rhel/centos which is one of the 2 most important distros. it's like debian unstable.
arch has no reason to exist. you can go debian experimental an get the same.
I would just go with fedora, debian and Ubuntu.
Nobody actually gives a shit about the others.
gentoo... nope
arch... I like it. up to date pac and AUR . less stable than others
Debian... great and stable plus deb
fedora... never tried have zero interest in it so don't know
Different strokes for different folkes. using your logic only Gentoo should exist
I'll put this in a fresh thread:
- Mint for complete winbabbies.
- Ubuntu for normies.
- Debian Testing for power users.
- Gentoo for advanced users (or those willing to learn).
- SUSE, Arch, or Fedora for hipsters.
>Fedora
Can someone please explain to me the obsession with this shit distro?
I've used it for 3 months before switching and my experience has been nothing but shit
It literally has nothing to offer, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between fedora and ubuntu if they both used apt, upgrading to a new release is more reliably done through complete format&reinstall than the upgrade scripts, RPMFusion is poor man's AUR and things have a habit of breaking post-upgrade because untested software
I can understand gentoo, arch, debian, ubuntu, hell even opensuse has its place (apparmor), but fedora? Literally why
>- Mint for complete winbabbies.
>- Ubuntu for normies.
>- Debian Testing for power users.
so you've listed 3 times debian testing..
>Debian for servers and nothing else
FTFY.
That's too many. Anymore than 3-4 is too many.
>Not fedora
Reboot after every update
>i have no idea what i'm talking about
FTFY
>if you want all the latest packages at the potential expense of stability
>if you want rock solid stability at the expense of updated packages
This is possible to do on Gentoo, even with the choice of what packages should act which way.
Literally there is no reason in 2016 not to use Gentoo, unless you need to reinstall frequently for some reason or have better things to do than go through the pretty long install phase
haven't used gentoo in 10 years, how long does a complete system update take (rebuilding everything including X, etc...)
If it was that shit then how the fuck did it take you three months to figure that out?
>i'm too autistic to use gentoo
A complete install, from the live cd to a full working KDE with drivers and sound and all took me 1 hour of actual work (installing manually, configuration, etc) and a night (I slept for 8 hours, I don't know how much time it actually took) of compiling.
I own an i5 2500k.
But updates (which I install daily, my system is currently on the "unstable" branch) take me 5 minutes tops to complete, maybe 25 if I'm updating palemoon or lobreoffice or something.
What is with all the fedora shilling? It hasnt been usable since 10, literally the most counter intuitive system of them all
I didn't wanna switch because having to install and configure all the software all over again sucks ass
>OpenSUSE
for the dank lizard logo
It's not shilling if it's true. Fedora is for anyone who actually wants to use their computer instead of spending hours dicking around and shit posting on Sup Forums about how autistic they are.
It is shilling theres at least three other threads right now pushing fedora its notoriously unstable the only people who use fedora seriously are masochists
Manjaro.
> Ubuntu = Arch > Debian > Any distro > Fedora
Gentoo is a meme distro
No Slackware??? Fedora is hard to find docs online that aren't for an old version
openSUSE rocks!
>the meme lizard is awesome
I've ran Fedora for years on various hardware and never had a single issue. Fedora is one of the few distro's that actually comes with all the drivers you need. Arch is basically Gentoo on training wheel, Debian is unstable as fuck, never had a system run Debian well. And Ubuntu is babbies first linux. If you're installing on laptops, every distro has issues. On actual standard hardware it works great.
implying you couldn't make them one distro:
all applications come in form of source packages - from there the source packages are sorted into 3 main debian-like branches - so you basically have gentoo for testers. People building them from source could create official packages , debs or whatever you want to call it - main ones would be supported by the main team. Security team only needs to maintain source packages and give hints on compiling into .debs (or again whatever) . Testing should contain the latest "stable" builds , with optional security patches (just like arch/debian testing, maybe more in an arch way). all packages not maintained my the main team would be in some kind of AUR/RPMfusion/ contrib/non-free style repo.
I may have fucked something up in the process but there is no reason why it has to be split since every distro has to provide their own source packages s you can make a gentooish system based on any distribution, and (based on precompiled packages) a stable system and a normal system that would be testing/arch/fedora like. + an unstable/arch edge like.
it would be less splitting manpower since:
>packages need a security team watching over them
>you need to split the branches anyway at least in stable(as in not buggy)/testing way
>you need people producing precompiled packages (debs/rpms/etc) unless you wanna compile them yourself (two packages managers , one portage style and one apt/dnf style would solve this)
I've never used gentoo. I run debian on my FTP server and my raspberry pi though, and my desktop as well as my laptop run arch. I think I'll switch to fedora on my laptop soon though because I use it for schoolwork and don't want unexpected shit where something essential breaks. Only drawback for me is that it isn't a rolling release. I really like that my Arch can stay 100% up to date but I never have to reinstall.
What is the best ubuntu + xfce combination? Xubuntu? I've tasted xubuntu and it's kinda buggy.
Basically debian.
When people say debian they usually mean debian stable, which is the ultra-stable version we all know, security updates only. Then you have testing where packages will get updated if there aren't major bugs and no new bugs have been discovered for (iirc) 2 weeks. Then there's unstable where shit gets updated all the time.
At a certain interval the testing branch will go into lockdown, where the focus is on bugfixing and security, after which it will become the new debian stable and the process starts over.
I'll make the logo
well i know that debian fits ,but it takes away the ability to build a whole system from source like gentoo. Also the testing branch (which in a singular OS model i discussed would be the main release - like arch-stable or fedora or ubuntu or something) would need stricter control over what you put in it - my guess is a little more stable arch - rolling but not totally on the edge. Stable could be called server or workstation or stable or something, and basically provide what debian stable does right now ,but with maybe more/easier access to newer kernels/drivers/etc. With more manpower i believe this would be achievable.
there is no need for another distro , maybe a need for merging manpower and the backup of redhat/canonical money.
Literally fighting over deb vs rpm vs shit brought us to this state. Basically every major distro agrees on main points:
>Separate official / nonfree-contrib packages into different repositories/channels
>A testing branch and a stable branch
>stable is not for desktops
>Fedora
Is it true that it doesn't support non-free software?
Complete newbie here
it does not provide it in the official repositories, you have to use RPMfusion repos to get it, unless there are some non-free blobs in kernel/firmware packages.
Debian does the same , its just easier to add unofficial repos (contrib/nonfree) to the system and its imo better organized. (Eg i had problems with rpmfusion but not with contrib/nonfree repos)
Oh, I see. Thanks user.
there is no reason to not choose systemd. If they manage to screw up you can still go back to maintaining upstart/openrc or whatever it was before (i never paid attention). Worse part is people adding dependencies to systemd on their projects (gnome for example). That fucks you up if after say 5 years you want to drop systemd and half of your software needs major rewrites because dependencies.
also some people say that debian has different than FSF views on what is free and what is not. Because licenses are not "free enough" for FSF or something.
>gentoo
install it
>arch
kys
>debian
ubuntu is better
>fedora
*tips*
>can't even keep their SSL certificates up to date
no thanks
replace fedora with opensuse
saying that ubuntu is better is like saying mint is better than ubuntu. They just give you newer packages than stable. Ubuntu is like polished snapshot of testing, in the end it gets old on "unofficial" packages and needs some shady PPAs. Also basically every recent release since 14.10 is broken for a few months from my experience. Not mentioning major fuckups like gnome dependencies on gnome2 to unity jump.
What happened to Debian testing? It used to be rock solid and now I'm getting numerous problems. This is after a fresh install too.
>I know shit about linux but is enough to summarize distros on /g
cumulusnetworks.com
fortune.com
alpinelinux.org
Which problems did you have, user?
>there is no reason to not choose systemd
You literal fucking retard I just posted an ARCHIVE of articles and reasoning to not choose systemd. Also, the Debian project split over this issue and created a new distrobution. devuan.org
without-systemd.org
without-systemd.org
without-systemd.org
without-systemd.org
without-systemd.org
>arch has no reason to exist. you can go debian experimental an get the same.
I find arch packages from the official repositories with pacman to install faster than compiled packages from Debian and Debian based distros. And arch has a bigger selection in it's official repositories.
problems with adding the fusion repos in fedora 22/23 (for a week), missing or broken nvidia drivers and dependencies for them, once they removed cmus and livestreamer from them mid release. Usually some weird shit i never experienced on another os, even though i always liked fedora and used it the same way as today , and i dont get problems nowdays. But i still find rpmfusion repos lacking packages (maybe some less popular ones) compared to debian testing + contrib/non-free. Its all just my experience ,maybe i actually fucked something up, but i use various linux distros since 2008 , 2011 as main.
I don't get it tho. Menes aside for a moment, if bleeding edge was the biggest "feature" of arch Gentoo literally sweeps the floor. Compiling straight from source packages wrapped in a package manager is pretty desu. I hate handling source by hand. I wish I could use the Gentoo pkg manager on Debian to get the absolute latest linux desktop apps.
You guys have absolutely no idea how normal people use computers or what users need...this is sad.
This is why Linux will remain an utter failure as an operating system outside of servers.
Linux isn't failure. It's a literally a hobby and pastime.
And that's all it can ever be.
well you are free to start a business with it to spread your vision to planet
honestly even now 99% of userbase is worthless trash. we need more contributors, not whiners, so please stay away.
Funtoo is objectively better than gentoo, but gentoo has meme points
all articles against systemd are usually opinion/paranoia based. I remember literall NSA threads on Sup Forums few years back saying systemd is backdoor and will rape you in your sleep and make your mother watch.
That said i am concerned by its monolithic nature combined with other projects adding dependencies for it. This possibly may (and is) seriously backfire for people who want to choose not to use it, just like devuan people.
But imo its better to make petitions etc to systemd maintainers asking them to split it into smaller programs, just like unix philosophy intends, so it will be easier to replace them if needed.
But yes, better spam pastebins and call people retards on anonymous anime imageboards, that will surely stop them, just how it worked on windows 10 being spyware.
>fedora
Absolute crap.
>arch
Pointless and buggy
>Gentoo
It's a meme
Debian is the only distro you should be running.
>honestly even now 99% of userbase is worthless trash
This. You gain nothing but headaches by winning the OS popularity contest when you're not selling the OS. Neither Linux or the *BSDs have anything to gain from being the go to OS for facebook machines.
But there are backdoors. They are called exploits. We already know the NSA has a stash of 0-days to pop hard targets.
The biggest worries (addressed by Linus) about systemd was it went against the compartmentalization philosophy of separating process spaces ie. kernal space and init space. There were also some gleaming design flaws and bugs/security holes with systemd including lack of documentation on part from Red Hat contributors.
While you agree with me the gain is drivers. We do need hardware.
>all articles against systemd are usually opinion based.
Stopped reading there again. You're the dumbest fuck on earth.
There's plenty of supported hardware already. The people who aren't in the category of users that we should avoid attracting know how to support hardware companies that have drivers for Linux.
Ubuntu if you want support for every laptop on the market, even if you have to use proprietary drivers.
>normies
>less than 1% of the OS market.
lol.
For me though, compiling packages every time I want to update them is pretty obnoxious and a waste of time. I try to limit my use of the AUR for this reason.
I find that the pre compiled packages on Arch's official repositories already small enough and I like that they install so quickly.
OK? Pretty sure we're talking about just GNU/Linux, not all operating systems.
Ubuntu is very user-friendly and (arguably) the most popular version of GNU/Linux. So you can give it to your mom or whoever and they should be able to use it to do normal computer tasks (browsing the web, viewing media, editing documents, etc.) with relative ease.
>Any real developers long ago switched to Macs so they could get some work done.
Enjoy not having a real package manager.
... Why would Mac have a package manager? That would just be weird.
Because I like using a tool to install, remove and update packages from verified sources instead of having to download and install each update by hand like a subhuman.
>That would just be weird.
Why?
>not knowing what homebrew is
Step it up user. I never owned a Mac and I known about this but from what I heard it sucks ass compared to proper package managers. Basically it's a cli application downloader and not much else.
I can do all of that with Gentoo though.
>One distro to rule them all
Most people use Windows, if they can hunt around the web and managed to not get viruses then whatever a Mac offers is sufficient.
did you follow some guide?
systemd is the only thing bringing linux together. with systemd you can have as many shitty shoot-off operating systems as you want it's all the same
I learned systemd before I used sysVinit.
sysVinit feels like some kind of backwards hack to me personally.
Is that your only criticism?
Ther's a story behind that, btw.
>What is homebrew?
>What is macports?
>implying that shipping with an advanced package manager by default may not be harmful in some cases
four distros to rule all of the miniscule linux marketshare?
Am I supposed to be impressed?
>devuan.org
>that fugly CSS
>designed like it's still 2006
>middle of the decade syndrome
>definately ticking instead of tocking
INTO THE TRASH IT GOES
Everything but Debian and CentOS is pretty much irrelevant desu. Arch and Gentoo are memes.
>Mint
When you want a distro with the familiarity of Windows but the stability of Debian.
Tbh dnf is a pretty cool guy. Very up to date and stable packages, upgrading to new releases never fucks up for me desu desu senpai️. I don't think you have even used fedora desu lol kk :):)
Devaun...if gnome3 worked out the iso..
Ubuntu
Debian
CentOS
That's pretty much it for desktop Linux.
Fedora, Arch, Gentoo are all tinkerer's distros. If you're the type who would use them you don't need to read any "best of" lists anyway.
There is literally _nothing_ that Mint does better than Ubuntu for casual users and it's worse in every way.
If you want a slightly more Windows like UI just get Ubuntu Gnome or Lubuntu or Xubuntu.
There is _zero_ reason to ever recommend that piece of shit that is Mint.
>- Mint for complete winbabbies.
Mint has no reason to exist. The only worthwhile thing they've done is a fork of gnome and that can easily exist without the shitfest that is Mint.
>Ther's a story behind that, btw.
>there's a backstory on why they can't get their shit together so it's excused
> anything to gain from being the go to OS for facebook machines
Besides impossible to find otherwise bugs. Normies have a way of making even the best software crash.
apt-get -b source packagename ?
Haven't used Debian for some time so I ain't sure if it does what you want.
>>stable is not for desktops
When did this thinking become acceptable?
It's a desktop, it's supposed to work and get out of the way so you can concentrate on what you want to do with your computer!
Beta testing unstable desktop OS (proprietary or open source) without being a desktop developer is mental masturbation at best and some weird form of self punishment.
It's disappointing that increasingly Windows, Mac and Linux users are finding it acceptable to spend increasingly more time to deal with stupid bugs that shouldn't be there (and weren't there) in the first place, caused by rapid development and deployment
>Apple
major "stable" release per year
>Linux distros
,3 major "stable" releases per year
>Windows
>>lol all our releases are """stable""" put more """telemetry""" and ads
Debian stable is the only OS that isn't consumed by this madness
> Worse part is people adding dependencies to systemd on their projects (gnome for example).
systemD didn't see widespread adoption before it somehow became a hard dependency for Gnome.
Who develops systemD?
Who develops Gnome?
Coincidence?
I think not...
>Ubuntu ((((botnet)))) equal to arch
kys
>Normies have a way of making even the best software crash.
Don't worry, I'm a normie and I use Debian.
I'm Arch user but I'll say it:
Gentoo > Arch > Debian > Manjaro > any other distro > Ubuntu = Linux Mint
I'm just step away from the superiority.
You forgot to mention Windows 10 and MacOS Sierra.
>I'm not autistic enough to use gentoo
Why aren't you using what's the better distro in your eyes?
well difference between debian stable release and an apple/windows release is availability of fresh stable builds of software. In a debian system you only have unofficial backports or can compile.
a desktop OS is more about what software you can use on it, i don’t find stable suitable for this. You lack fresh drivers for newer machines out of the box , new versions of libreoffice/gimp/media players/browsers etc.
I know this is kind of fixed by the backports but not to the required extent imo.
So im not bashing , debian stable is really a great distro it just needs better backports for it to be better for desktops compared to say ubuntu.
I don't feel like compiling everything from source, especially with shitty laptop.