Which OS do you use ?

Which OS do you use ?

Other urls found in this thread:

archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/sdl/.
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Ubuntu with i3.

win8.1
Can't be bothered to upgrade or switch to linux since too many things installed

OpenPEPE+KDE

i wanted to try xubuntu and it's been working for two years now. i don't bother to try anything else.

...

I also used it before but when i changed my computer, i wanted to try another one

Windows 7 on my laptop for porn and printing documents. Mac OSX 10.7.5 on my 2006 imac for 1080p porn, music and browsing. Windows 7 on my gaming PC. Ubuntu 16 LTS server on my x41 for C programming.

You can dualboot that can be interesting, no ?

I hoard files
Literally not enough space left for a new OS drive

why are you on Sup Forums ?

I wanted to say the same things but i prefered to say nothing

I am usually a Debian guy but I switched to Fedora 26 today because I grew to like GNOME a lot and I want the newest version. Also I love the free software focus of the project.

>I hoard files
You really want Linux for this kind of stuff, even as NAS.
Shit like ZFS is required if you like file integrity.

debian
debian + mate = turd

OpenSUSE Tumbleweed

...

void + i3 + knowing how to fix shit without documentation holding your hand through everything

= perfect OS

Debian

Does Fedora have more free software focus then Debian?

Fedora

macOS Sierra

Emacs

>Windows 10 on my desktop
Because gaming and Windows specific software. I know it is spyware but it runs very good and is stable and I prefer the overall look and feel to Win7.

>Ubuntu on my laptop
Havent tried that many different distros, so far only Mint and a few Ubuntu variations. I like Linux a lot more than Windows because I enjoy using the console more and installing stuff on Linux is just more comfortable imo. Thinking about getting a Thinkpad and putting something like Arch on it because I kinda want to dive deeper into Linux.

>Win7 on my work laptop
Got it from the company I work for and they use Win7 so no real choice here. Runs well,though.

ubongo + xfeces

Kde Neon, Sabayon Linux, and Windows 8.1

>Pic related
today OP was not a faggot

>not having a freenas box
>not have 16tb of drives
>not using raid 10
>not using clonezilla to make images of your OS on a monthly basis

Git gud

Still rockin' XP like a boss

macOs Sierra

I'd say they are at the same level. Fedora is more conservative with the codecs, you need to enable the RPMFusion repo which has patented codecs like mp3, mp4, etc. There is also a nonfree version of RPMFusion with nonfree programs, so you can also get nonfree shit relatively easily on both distros. Fedora also makes an exception for binary firmware, so you get nonfree drivers for wifi out of the box.
And Fedora has much more up to date packages, and has stuff like IceCat and Qutebrowser which aren't on Debian.

Debian 8, hopefully moving to 9 soon, testing it currently

Windows until KDE is fixed

Why not? Debian 9 has been stable even months before it was released.

>Not using kde neon now

Arch + GNOME

Windows because I am not a communist Linux user and I don't care for MacOS.

But it's shit

Linux because I am not a capitalist Windows user and I don't care for MacOS.

>communist
I hate this meme. There's nothing communist about it.
Also *GNU/Linux

MacOS because I'm a faggot

Ubuntu user here.
Debian/Fedora/Arch?

*GNU/Linux has to be given away free
*Any software you make under GNU/Linux can not be sold
*Even if you port it to other platforms, it has to be free
*everything has to be free because Communism.

Laptop:
Win7 - Microsoft office for school, and school wifi isnt detected on linux lol.

Elementary - Mainly what i use at home because it looks really nice and is perfect for web browsing.

Mint - When i want a more "linuxy" experience, plus it looks nice xD

Desktop:
Win 7 - all i use my desktop for is games and win 7 looks nice.

Debian if you want something that works like Ubuntu but gives you more control and also has much greater stability.
Fedora if you want new and relatively stable software and care for free software. It also has possibly the best GNOME experience.
Arch if you want full control over every package on your system and also want the absolute newest software.

What?
>GNU/Linux has to be given away free
No, possibly the biggest professional GNU/Linux distribution, RHEL, costs money to use.
>Any software you make under GNU/Linux can not be sold
Again, no, no one is stopping you to sell your programs.
You are confusing it with the part of GPL that says all GPL licenced programs can be modified and used however you want , and re released but they still have to stay in the GPL licence and not be closed source. You can still sell GPL programs. And you don't have to licence your programs under GPL. You can make something that's as locked down as you want.
>Even if you port it to other platforms, it has to be free
Same as above
"free" software is not about price, it's about freedom.
But there's also a lot of non-free programs on GNU/Linux as well.

Ubuntu 14.04

It can be sold, the "free" refers to the license you mongoloid. As in the source of the software isn't locked up in fort knox and no one can see it or modify it. Most just donate to the distro of their choice.

same here but have a separate XFCE session...just in case.

But you are not free to take your software and lock up the source code for security reasons. Everyone has to be able to see it and modify it. Communism.

Same, brother.

Yes and that only applies to GPL licenced software. You can still install and use and make closed source stuff on GNU/Linux, even though that misses the point.

How is locking down your code a security reason? Debian is one of the most stable and secure operating systems, and is used on a vast majority of servers in the world, and that's because everyone can see the code, therefore everyone can see bugs, exploits and backdoors so they can be fixed much more easily.
Windows has always been closed source and it has the most security flaws. Your logic just doesn't work in practice.

Linux mint had that security fail awhile back where people downloaded the ISO and got hit with ransomware.

Windows only appears to have so many flaws because so many people use it so hackers work harder to try and break in. If Linux was more popular, it's vulnerabilities would be brought to the forefront.

Because someone hacked the website and uploaded the tampered iso. So it was the fault of their website which was probably locked down, ironically.

>If Linux was more popular, it's vulnerabilities would be brought to the forefront.
But almost every server in the world runs on Linux. Others run Unix.

>Not using CentOS with ZFS root in addition to a storage pool and a NAND pool w/ snapshots & incremental backups
>/boot on SLC flash drive w/ regular dedup backups

My only regret is /boot is XFS

How? I've been running it on my x200 with no lag and no crashes. Please explain.

>My only regret is /boot is XFS
/boot can't be XFS

Why is it shit?
It's literally just fresh KDE with minimal bloat on a stable Ubuntu LTS base.
Seems to be the best option for a KDE desktop, along with OpenSUSE

Hackintosh is best. I've been dual booting macOS Sierra and fedora for a while now. Hackintosh takes a bit to setup but it's worth the extra effort.

Even if it's stable there are changes I need to get used to and test first.

That's actually false. Yes, Debian is used a lot for home server use but you won't find it in an enterprise situation. That will always be CentOS/RHEL or a company specific modified Ubuntu.

Somehow I got windows 10 for free after the free update thing for that assisted technology thing.
I need a fucking delorean because the upgrade locked me out of my main account. Enter the password at the screen, it loads and sends me right back to the user select.

Debian GNU/Linux Stretch

>wanting freedom is communism
oh how the times has changed

Maybe you should try to read the license before you make up something like that.

>Arch if you want full control over every package
this is very much bullshit, arch is by far much more bloated than all of the RedHat and Debian derivatives.

you're hilariously misinformed
the mint morons failed to secure their website, it doesn't matter where the source code is or what the software is if someone can put whatever they wish on to their website

>it just werkz

Fedora used to be my OS of choice, I now us Qubes OS with Xen hypervisor.

Truly the master computing race.

>base package group is by far much more bloated than all of the RedHat and Debian derivatives
you just went full retard

I agree with user:
Arch base install is by far less bloated that RedHat or Debian. I mean, so much so that even hearing you make that claim makes me wonder if you are not at all familiar with what you are talking about.

Windows 10 for muh gayming
Mac OS Sierra for muh daily stuff
iOS 10 on muh phone

Windows 10.

why are YOU on the technolo/g/y board again?

Arch packages contain everything from libraries to headers, to debug symbols to extra documentation and also merges packages that need not be merged much more frequently.
For instance take a look at archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/sdl/.
where as Debian based distributions have packages like libsdl2-2.0.0 for the libraries, libsdl2-dbg for debug symbols, libsdl2-dev for headers and development files, and so on for each of the net, gfx, etc. parts where arch only has one package for each.
Even the minimal "base" part of arch includes unnecessary headers.
And as to why the "base installation" is irrelevant, Arch has no installer, debian does. If you wish to install debian without what you may consider bloat, you are free to install it the same way as Arch is installed, or better yet use the advanced installation.

While I can't give you any exact numbers on an arch installation, since I'm too lazy to install it just for this post, at least a plain debian installation with nothing selected in tasksel, just from the basic netinstall, uses 578M of storage, 25M of RAM after log-in, has 211 packages compared to arch's 56, now these are all things any system needs, and that if not included in arch will be pulled as dependencies right away. But of course it is possible to avoid this and install less by installing debian in the same way as Arch.

If actually interested in comparing, please feel free to provide the same information from a base arch installation.

>ITT: Everyone pretends they're not using Windows 10

Programming Penguin Mint 18.2

win 7 on gaymen pc, kubuntu on everything else

debin testing

what you are talking about is socialism

communism is what we had in ussr, which can be described in many words but "free" and "freedom" aren't one of them.

if anything, windows or osx is more like communism than linux

The best one.

Why do you need Xen

Literally living the botnet

this but i use alpine, arch, and debian on my desktop and vpses

going to ditch arch and debian soon and go full alpine/gentoo though. musl and openrc have enlightened me

windows 98

Explain why they have enlightened you, I keep hearing about Alpine on here but noone says why

NOTHING TO HIDE
NOT EVEN MY
2500
RARE
WHITE
SUPREMACIST
FROGS
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>projecting
I'm sorry I don't use a broken OS

also, sage

Parabola GNU+linux-libre

If you read the archive, you would understand. Or, I don't know, look at the website?

If GNU+linux is communism then communism is good.

communism is literally anything that doesnt involve being born to rich parents at this point

Hackintosh macOS Sierra

The website says its good as an OS to run Docker and not much else

Fedora

KDE Neon so Ubuntu

Debian for server
Solus for work
Win7 for games

Technically, communism is fucking fantastic with the condition that its subjects are perfectly motivated and selfless. Humans are selfish and greedy most of the time, so communism usually becomes a totalitarian regime.

>xD
Underage detected

Windows xp for printing
windows 7 for looking up porn
windows 8 for tablet loli sketches

>you guys can't be smarter than me
>I'm definitely the best