Which Linux distro is the best for programming and development (network)?

Which Linux distro is the best for programming and development (network)?

Is Solus good?

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/torvalds/linux
yarnpkg.com/en/docs/install
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Neither. Linux is utter garbage.

github.com/torvalds/linux
Build it yourself

(Or try Arch/Gentoo)

Solus is a pretty good just werks distro if you aren't allowed user.
Terrible for anything else.
Don't believe anything Kevin has to say.

Install gentoo, nigger

[spoiler]Solus is actually pretty good though[/spoiler]

>if you aren't allowed user

wtf does this even mean

Solus has lots of dev shit in the repos so it may be fine for a starter (and OP surely is one)

Meant to say a power user lol.
Don't mind me, I'm just a baka phoneposter~

Theres literally no reason to use anything else other than ubuntu and fedora.

>Which Linux distro is the best for programming and development (network)?
>
>Is Solus good?
One that you're comfortable with and gets the fuck out of your way so you can actually work.

Solus doesn't have much in their repos and they aren't based on anything like debian or fedora so there isn't a lot available unless you compile it yourself. You'll have an easier time with any Debian, Ubuntu, or Arch based distro.

Ubuntu

At which level? You leave out a very important part OP.

If you are just starting then go for any Ubuntu flavor, if you know what you are doing and need an advanced environment go for Source Mage. Slackware is middle ground and also god tier.

Why every faggot asks for distros to use
T R Y I T Y O U R S E L F
use virtualbox or a fucking live USB
is it really that hard jesus christ

This. Then we MAY get some really good threads.

Xubuntu 16.04 LTS is the only answer

Serious answer here

For when you need something that works out of the box: Ubuntu and flavors, fedora, Manjaro etc.

For maximum stability and configuration: Gentoo

For security:
OpenBSD

For servers: CentOS, FreeBSD, RHEL

>for (((((security))))) openBSD
kys cuck

you were doing good until the BSD shit

>implying people who know what they're doing want to build everything from scratch instead of doing actual work

>not mentioning debian..
n00b

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

fuckup it's linux, Lord Linus says so

Linus didn't develop an operating system, just a kernel, which is called Linux. This kernel is mostly used together with the GNU operating system.

yeah no fuck off stallman

Linux is an operating system, and it doesn't need GNU to work.

Lord Linus says you're full of shit Stallman with your gnu crap.

...

There is a long-standing naming controversy. Most people who use the system today don't know that what they're actually using is the GNU system combined with the kernel Linux. For many years, the media and the user community itself has given undue weight to the contributions that come from Linus Torvalds' camp and fostered a skewed account of the operating system's history, while barely acknowledging the existence of the GNU project at all. The GNU project was started in 1984 by Richard Stallman to develop a complete free operating system, because none existed at the time. Its design closely followed that of Unix because Unix was highly machine-portable and (at that time) pervasive. Linus Torvalds did not write a whole operating system, he only wrote the last missing piece, a kernel, and he only did that in the first place because development of Hurd, the GNU project's own kernel, was lagging behind (and has not been completed to this day). Torvalds didn't write the kernel because of a belief in "open source", a term that wasn't even coined until 1998 and misses the point of free software, and he originally released it in 1991 under a proprietary license until he was persuaded to relicense it under the GPL the next year. Saying "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" is fairer and more accurate. Without the irreplaceable software contributed by the GNU project − and even more importantly, the founding ideas of freedom − the system most mistakenly call "Linux" would not exist.

>Saying "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" is fairer and more accurate
No, it's not. By using "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" you're excluding the many embedded versions of Linux, which comes with few, if any, GNU software.

They are excluded correctly since they aren't GNU/Linux systems. Same with Android, which uses the same amount of Linux used in the GNU system, yet you wouldn't omit Android and call it just "Linux", right?

We're not talking about GNU, were talking about Linux.

You need to understand that GNU != Linux

They will all do the job. Ubuntu is you want out of the box functionality, arch / gentoo is fantastic if you have the time to get everything set up. But in all honestly any distro will do.

OP is talking about "Linux distributions", which is either an error and he means "GNU/Linux distributions" or it's not an error and he's talking about modifications of the kernel, Linux.

Not all "Linux distributions" are "GNU/Linux distributions". Alpine Linux is a "Linux distribution" but isn't a "GNU/Linux distribution" because it uses fewer GNU software than a "GNU/Linux distribution" would. "Linux distribution" is the correct term.

>Alpine Linux is a "Linux distribution
No it isn't. Alpine Linux implies that it's a modification, distribution of Linux, the kernel, but it isn't. Alpine includes more than a kernel.

Yes it is. "Linux distribution" is a term that means that it is a distribution of Linux kernel and also includes software that is in a way, compatible with "GNU/Linux".

The expression “Linux kernel” can easily be misunderstood as meaning “the kernel of Linux” and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel. You can avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing “the kernel, Linux” or “Linux, the kernel”.

"Linux" means more than a kernel, stop trying to fight me with copypastas.

There is nothing that goes under the name Linux other than the kernel developed by Linus Torvalds.

Ask the public that. You can't fight with the world trying to shove GNU down people's throats.

I don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.

Why is that penguin saluting Hitler?

It's not an error. Linux means anything running the Linux kernel with userspace that is compatible with GNU, but it doesn't necessarily mean GNU.

There is nothing that goes under the name Linux other than the kernel developed by Linus Torvalds.

Stop. You have been disproven. Stop saying the same things hoping to shove GNU into our computers. I call it Linux because it is just that, Linux, not GNU/Linux, not GNU+Linux, but Linux.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Unfortunately for penguins, their arms are not very articular.

Fuck off Stallman, I will not submit to your nonsense

I'd experiment with Linux if all my replies weren't shitposts when I ask what it can do for me/knew anything about coding.

All they main ones are pretty good for that. Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, etc.

Niche ones will probably give you problems that just distract you from getting work done.

You might be interested in the i3 twm. I've found the keyboard shortcuts and the tiling features to provide a more efficient workflow. It's kind of ugly on the eyes but if you're a developer then editing a simple config file to make it prettier should be no problem for you :^)

Just don't fall for the Sup Forums rice meme and install it with gaps, that makes it less efficient and defeats the purpose of a twm

You don't need to know anything about "coding" to use most of the main Linux distros.

Hi, Anyways, if coding isn't needed for most, then what's the attractiveness of Linux if you destroy your ability to run over a third of all programs created on this planet?

>If you don't need need to know coding which complicates the process of using an operating system then why is said operating system attractive

what

>Needing to code an OS that is apparently less complicated makes it less attractive

what

>falling for such obvious bait

kys

I would probably go with Ubuntu.
For the two following reasons:
> Everything works and is easy to figure out.
AND:
> Everything you need is in a repository, PPA, or similarly packaged and available.

This makes it much easier to get started, and you need to get shit done.

I'm not shitting on Gentoo, but if you were seriously considering Gentoo, you wouldn't be asking Sup Forums for advice to begin with.

>a third of all programs created on this planet

If we're being honest, then something like 90% of the software you can only install on Windows are shitware/adware/poo-in-looware that you download from some sketchy website lol. The other 10% either has some decent alternatives on Linux or it doesn't.

What makes Linux attractive is the freedom it gives you over your own computer. If you don't like the way it looks, for example, you can install a different UI, or if you're feeling autistic you can create a custom desktop by editing config files and watching tutorials.

You can leave your computer on virtually forever, updates won't force you to restart. You can update whenever you want; furthermore, you can use your computer while it's updating.

There are a lot of different distros to choose from to suit your needs. Reputable distributions like Debian will give you stability and reliability. Distributions like gentoo let you compile everything from source, tweaked to your specific hardware, if that's your thing.

Windows uses up a lot of RAM and CPU. While that's not important in most modern computers, that extra memory Linux gives you is nice in older computers.

If none of that's important to you, or if none of it applies to you, then stick to Windows, or buy a Mac. Linux isn't really for everyone

what lol

>implying you know what you are talking about

Just shitposting my dude

It doesn't fucking matter.

Arch linux (use antergos if you are lazy like me). Yes not ubuntu.
Arch linux package manager has more packages than ones used by other distros, such as ubuntu/debian. It's also easier/faster to install libraries/software on Arch.
Just take a look at linux installation here and see:
yarnpkg.com/en/docs/install

It's always that simple to install shit. Just one command and you are ready.

On the other hand, ubuntu based distros are the most annoying to use.

> →
Eat it

→

Heed Lord Linus

Stop sucking my cock, please. I's GNU/Linux.