Linux Distro Pro & Con, "Linux VS Linux"

[Ioky]

I have been using many Linux distro for the past few years. I notice, distro shift can occur very often, if one distro doesn't fit to your need. Here is is thought about a few distro I have come across, and how they fit me.

First start with ubuntu

I found ubuntu happen to been a great studio distro, except ubuntu studio. For the most part, it come with almost everything you need out of the box. And many libraries and engines such as panda3D come with .deb binary for ubuntu. It would be a great distro for productive purpose.

However, happen to be universal, I feel that ubuntu are little too "fat". There is few things here and there that I will never need. This also makes the distro less flexible. although, like almost any, if not all Linux distro, you can pretty much do whatever you want. Things can get a little annoying to get to, and modify. (compare to some other distro)

ubuntu is very polished toward to user friendly. As I say, it is great to use as a studio. Operating and maintaining an OS in any mean and producing studio can be too much to be done alone. Like many people say, "I use ubuntu to get things done". However, ubuntu is not polished at all in admin level. Booting from text and operating in console, I can tell that ubuntu seem a bit messy. No Color assign to anything, everything is black and white, which make it had to local things around. Sometime you can't even know what is [OK] and what [fail], if you didn't look close enough.

OpenSUSE

OpenSUSE is amazingly polished, in both GUI and console. It is not as user friendly and "easy to use" as ubuntu but they are about the same. Release are relatively up to date, which is a good thing. Software often come with binary, which is make it another "get things done" distro. Package manager seem more messy than ubuntu, and relatively "ugly" virtually. It comes with very best menu, and it looks more professional.

After all, it is a very polished distro, and yet, get thing done. Like ubuntu it is not as efficient as an OS.

Fedora

Fedora is another one, ubuntu/OpenSUSE like distro. Not as polish as OpenSUSE, not as user friendly as ubuntu, everything is pretty average. Fedora's Repo are not as complete, as the others. One of the most interesting thing about Fedora is that, Fedora develop group love to try difference things. Tool like USB Linux tools, very "cool" looking boot, customize live linux tools, are all come first with Fedora.

Arch Linux

Arch Linux is one of them best Linux OS I have ever use. However, it is not he best Linux Distro I have ever use. As an OS itself, it is very flexable, extremely fast, and very polish from the very basic level. It is also optimize for my machine. One of the biggest problem I found with Arch Linux is that, it is over cutting edge. Almost every software it come along with it are the newest version. That makes the distro not as stable, and you need to fix things around here and there. I might not a distro for people who is new for linux. It takes forever to setup, luckily, you only need to do it once. For my purpose, mainly studio work and development, it is lack of software that is out of box. It will take me a week or two, to make it into a environment I need for development.

haha If that is possible to have a distro that is Archlinux base, with ubuntu reop. It would be more than good, it would be great. I stop here for now. Hope you enjoy it.

[Sorivenul]

I have been using many Linux distro for the past few years. I notice, distro shift can occur very often, if one distro doesn't fit to your need.
Of if you just want to test more distributions... ;)

However, happen to be universal, I feel that ubuntu are little too "fat". There is few things here and there that I will never need. This also makes the distro less flexible.
I would agree that the default *buntu setups are a bit bloated, though others mileage may vary. This is why all of my Ubuntu setups are done from the Minimal ISO. I would also argue that Ubuntu is equally as customizable as any other distro, just less easily so in some areas (like when uninstalling "bloat" removes a user's desktop - I can't tell you how many times I've seen posts like this).

OpenSUSE is amazingly polished, in both GUI and console. It is not as user friendly and "easy to use" as ubuntu but they are about the same.
I hear this argument frequently around here. Personally, I find openSUSE to be as easy to use as Ubuntu, simply different, especially if you have spent some time on Debian-based distributions. YaST is an amazing tool that too many Ubuntu/Debian users are almost afraid of.

After all, it is a very polished distro, and yet, get thing done. Like ubuntu it is not as efficient as an OS.
I think you're trying to say that Ubuntu and openSUSE are not efficient, despite their polish and ability to get things done. Again, this is subjective, as I find I am about equally productive on both systems, and both systems about equally efficient on my hardware.

Fedora is another one, ubuntu/OpenSUSE like distro. Not as polish as OpenSUSE, not as user friendly as ubuntu, everything is pretty average.
It was said somewhere else on these forums, but it seems that Fedora is more of a "grown up" Linux. I'll try to find the link.

One of the biggest problem I found with Arch Linux is that, it is over cutting edge. Almost every software it come along with it are the newest version. That makes the distro not as stable, and you need to fix things around here and there.
It is, but it doesn't have to be. There are many ways to keep your system stable, even with the rolling releases, but after install this mainly is the responsibility of the user not the developers.

I might not a distro for people who is new for linux. It takes forever to setup, luckily, you only need to do it once. For my purpose, mainly studio work and development, it is lack of software that is out of box. It will take me a week or two, to make it into a environment I need for development.
I definitely wouldn't suggest Arch to new Linux users. Arch is, IMO, a great "next step" after using one of the other major distributions you've outlined here. The lack of software by default is a part of the Arch philosophy, and part of why Arch is so popular, as it allows the user nearly complete control. Also, setups only get faster as you get more used to Arch. Your first install may take a week or two, but by your 10th install you'll probably have it down to a science.

haha If that is possible to have a distro that is Archlinux base, with ubuntu reop. It would be more than good, it would be great. I stop here for now. Hope you enjoy it.
As in pacman using Ubuntu/Debian packages and a BSD-style init? I guess I don't see the purpose. Arch, when you figure in the AUR, has more packages than any user could ever use all of. Using the Ubuntu repos would defeat the purpose of the Arch package systems and PKGBUILDs.

NOTE: My above statements are my opinion. Other user's opinions may vary - this is a good thing. Cheers!

[Ioky]

I agree with you on some of the statement, Sorivenul. However,I think you should read paragraph as a whole. You simply can't judge each sentence as it is. :)

[wolfen69]

It was said somewhere else on these forums, but it seems that Fedora is more of a "grown up" Linux.

what does that mean?

[Sorivenul]

I agree with you on some of the statement, Sorivenul. However,I think you should read paragraph as a whole. You simply can't judge each sentence as it is. :)
I did read each as a whole, but selected what I saw as the best summation of each section, and my comments apply mostly to what I selected. I would also say you can't judge each distro just as it is. Just my two cents. :)

what does that mean?
It means, IMO, that Fedora requires an adult perspective. New users, or "children", will feel more comfortable with something like Mint, Ubuntu, or MEPIS, where much is taken care of for the user. Fedora requires you do a little bit more configuring and customization yourself, taking on more responsibility, or a more "grown up" approach. I suppose the same could be said for pure Debian, but again, just my opinion. The original post from Therion, here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6301916&postcount=18).

Cheers!

[wolfen69]

It means, IMO, that Fedora requires an adult perspective. New users, or "children", will feel more comfortable with something like Mint, Ubuntu, or MEPIS, where much is taken care of for the user. Fedora requires you do a little bit more configuring and customization yourself, taking on more responsibility, or a more "grown up" approach. I suppose the same could be said for pure Debian, but again, just my opinion. The original post from Therion, here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6301916&postcount=18).

Cheers!

i don't know how you came to this conclusion, but you are right, it is just your opinion. there are mature acting children, and there are not so mature adults. i believe it has more to do with one's technical abilities than age. but that is my opinion. nothing in life is written in stone.

[Sorivenul]

i don't know how you came to this conclusion, but you are right, it is just your opinion. there are mature acting children, and there are not so mature adults. i believe it has more to do with one's technical abilities than age. but that is my opinion. nothing in life is written in stone.
I agree with you.

I never said it didn't have to do with technical abilities, I simply referred to it in a more symbolic way, as that was how I took the original comment by Therion. I just didn't want to come out and say "n00bs ('children') will have a harder time with Fedora than 1337 haxxors ('grown ups')". :D

Didn't mean to cause a war, folks. Just making a statement. Peace.

[mikjp]

It means, IMO, that Fedora requires an adult perspective. New users, or "children", will feel more comfortable with something like Mint, Ubuntu, or MEPIS, where much is taken care of for the user. Fedora requires you do a little bit more configuring and customization yourself, taking on more responsibility, or a more "grown up" approach.

In my opinion it is not about being "adult", "responsible" or "grown up". It is a question about whether one is geek or not. If you are geek and enjoy hacking, there are some distros that are good for you. If you are adult that just wants to get things done, there are distros that are good for you.

Greetings,

Mikko

[defri]

In my opinion it is not about being "adult", "responsible" or "grown up". It is a question about whether one is geek or not. If you are geek and enjoy hacking, there are some distros that are good for you. If you are adult that just wants to get things done, there are distros that are good for you.

Greetings,

Mikko

I Agree. I think choosing a distro is like choosing a food. Maybe someone just like one distro whether it will be ubuntu, opensuse, fedora or anything else but another person not so fit with it. I think it's just a taste. You can't force someone to like a distro that you really like.

[Sorivenul]

In my opinion it is not about being "adult", "responsible" or "grown up". It is a question about whether one is geek or not. If you are geek and enjoy hacking, there are some distros that are good for you. If you are adult that just wants to get things done, there are distros that are good for you.

Again, it's just an analogy, but in the end the comparison is not that deep.

Age is irrelevant; experience plays a much more significant role. I know plenty of teenagers that use Fedora with no problems, the same way I know plenty of adults who use Fedora with no problems. I don't think this situation has as much to do with being "geek" or as it does with being experienced, and there is a difference.

And that, in yet another way, is what I think the original thought on Fedora being a "grown up" distribution, is about.

I'm done with this tangent.

[binbash]

you are trying to compare rolling distros and non rolling ones.Suse and fedora are non rolling distros.Everything you wrote is about a rolling distro not arch linux.