What do you think about these distros?

[Majorix]

I am downloading a few(!) distros in the background.

I want to get info about these distros from you guys as you are most likely more knowledgeable about them than me. I have never used them before.

Well without further ado, here are the distros I am downloading:
1. CentOS
I hear this distro is more for people that know much about Linux. Although I don't know that much, I am still downloading it. I hope this doesn't turn out to be another Slackware (eek!).
2. PCLinuxOS
I hear it is easy to use and is popular on DistroWatch. So I downloaded without a second thought.
3. Mepis
Actually I am not downloading this right now. Because
I. I couldn't find a torrent for the download. And HTTP/FTP is usually too slow.
II. I don't know which edition to download. There is Current Release, Testing Release and both are divided into SimplyMepis, Mepis KDE, Mepis Lite and so on.
Can anyone guide me with this one? Thanks.
4. openSUSE
Too popular and has a name. I couldn't resist.
5. Arch
I needed a light-weight distro but not as light-weight as Damn Small so I am downloading this.
6. Linux Mint
There is an Ubuntu-based distro and I haven't tried it? NOO! Hehe.

So what are your thoughts on these goodies? I know the list is too long so pick the one(s) you want to talk about :)

[kodoku]

I personally have used PCLinuxOS and currently using Mint.

PCLinuxOS was very polished and fast for me. I did quite like the initial setup in terms of appearance, but that is easily remedied. I like the fact that it uses Synaptic even though it uses RPMs.

Mint is just Ubuntu with new logos, colors, and a handful of proprietary software. The only thing I don't care for is the naming scheme. That's about it =)

[Majorix]

So do you mean Mint has the same bugs Ubuntu has?

[rfruth]

I have Mint (Cassandra) one a box of mine, its very good !
Installed Opensuse not too long ago (ver 10.2) but its RPM based not DEB so came back to Ubuntu quick !

[Majorix]

RPM was more popular than DEB once. So I guess there are still RPM packages around. Its not that bad I can use it. Also CentOS is RPM-based too.

CentOS sounds very tempting to me I don't know why. I guess I will install that first. Anyone use it?

[Dark Star]

If you wanna get among them get open SUSE .. PCLOS is good as it has everything out of the box but its not stable.. I had used it recently and there is no diff. btw PCLOS and Mandriva :)

[jrusso2]

1. CentOS
I hear this distro is more for people that know much about Linux. Although I don't know that much, I am still downloading it. I hope this doesn't turn out to be another Slackware (eek!).

This is a stable distro more for commercial use, its a clone of RHEL

2. PCLinuxOS
I hear it is easy to use and is popular on DistroWatch. So I downloaded without a second thought.

PCLinuxOS is great, easy to use. Not as big of a repository as Ubuntu though and uses RPM

3. Mepis
Actually I am not downloading this right now. Because
I. I couldn't find a torrent for the download. And HTTP/FTP is usually too slow.
II. I don't know which edition to download. There is Current Release, Testing Release and both are divided into SimplyMepis, Mepis KDE, Mepis Lite and so on.

Mephis is good I would wait for the new one based on Debian

Can anyone guide me with this one? Thanks.

4. openSUSE
Too popular and has a name. I couldn't resist.

Don't care for it but lots like it

5. Arch
I needed a light-weight distro but not as light-weight as Damn Small so I am downloading this.

Too much trouble for me but it has some strong fans.

6. Linux Mint
There is an Ubuntu-based distro and I haven't tried it? NOO! Hehe.

Linux Mint is great its like Ubuntu but even easier and better looking

[Dark Star]

Nice explanation there :D

[Tux Aubrey]

Of the ones you list that I've tried:

2. PCLinuxOS
Easy, nice system utilities (mandriva's). Good packages and package management. Bit boring IMO and not as popular (ie much smaller user base and forums) than you might believe from the DW stats. SAM Linux is a lighter weight version and I prefer it.

3. Mepis
Also a good, easy distro - great installer! I actually prefer antiX, which is an unofficial light version with a fluxbox WM. The new versions of both are in beta and I found antiX 7 beta to be pretty good but obviously not quite finished,

4. openSUSE
Sorry, I don't use distros backed by MS.:)

6. Linux Mint
Nice for newbies - but it really is just an Ubuntu rebuild with a different menu and an extra package management system.

If you don't take to Arch, try Zenwalk (a slack derivative) for something light and OMG fast. It is fully featured and comes with an excellent Xfce DE. Dreamlinux is another light one I recommend (but I know that some people have found it unstable).

[miggols99]

Arch!! It zooms on all of my comps, much faster than Ubuntu or Debian. The repos are decently big, and there are packages in the AUR for ones that aren't in the official repos. Pacman is much much easier than APT/DPKG IMO. It's fast, it's comfiguration file is much simpler than sources.list and you can update in one go:

pacman -Syu

If you like KDE, there's a modular KDE called KDEmod which is the fastest one I've ever seen. And looks good too :) Arch is good for "learning" Linux, and I certainly have :D

EDIT:

Too much trouble for me but it has some strong fans.

I'm one of them ;)

[Lord Illidan]

I'd also recommend Zenwalk. CentOS is more for corporate users, though.

[jinx099]

Try Fedora 7

[Majorix]

Fedora 7 (or 8 testing) doesn't recognize my wireless card at all. And since they are very closely related, neither does CentOS. Too bad. I thought I could like it.

About Zenwalk, I thought maybe it had a pretty bad package management system (or maybe not one at all like its father) and I thought it was more suitable for servers so I didn't consider it.

With 5 distros left on the list, I think I will try another one. God knows which one it will be, I am on Windows right now and the iso's fail to burn. So I will use the first one that does burn :)

[Tux Aubrey]

About Zenwalk, I thought maybe it had a pretty bad package management system (or maybe not one at all like its father) and I thought it was more suitable for servers so I didn't consider it.

Nope. Netpkg is pretty good IMO and comes with a fairly nice gui. And its very much a desktop distro (there is a different version for servers - as with Ubuntu). The only gotcha is (for me) that networking is not enabled on the default install. But an ifconfig eth0 up and the networking utility on the Zenpanel "utility belt thingy" got me connected pretty quickly.

[kazuya]

Linux Mint is my current prefered OS. It is very functional and good. It is Ubuntu with everything already added, done and beautified..

Ubuntu - well, simply an incredible distro.

Mepis - very nice distro. I am waiting until they go back to Debian roots.

PCLOS2007 - best rpm-based distro I have ever used. Very functional and easy to use like Mint and Mepis.

zenwalk is nice - for speed and functionality and ease of use combined, you cannot go wrong. you learn linux also, but at your pace.


Suse looks nice, but I could never use it for long. Too slow.

Fedora 7 core was slow for me as well. Maybe because I left too many services working. Looked very professional.

Arch linux never worked for me - I hear it is lightning fast

[ArtF10]

Zenwalk is one I would recommend but you haven't listed it. OF the ones you listed, Arch Linux.

[daveshields]

I've used SuSE for several years, starting with Novell's supported release of 9.3 and moving up to 10.1. I recently tried OpenSuSE 10.2. All worked well using the KDE desktop.

I recently discovered Ubuntu and now use it instead of SuSE.

The main differences I have found are:

Ubuntu provides a *much* bigger and more vital community.

SuSE provides by default a *large* number of packages. With Ubuntu you get the basic starter set and then grow your system as you choose. Though having all those packages at hand may seem convenient, I think Ubuntu's minimalist approach is more educational.

I'm also now using Gnome instead of KDE. I started using it since it was the default Ubuntu desktop option. I now prefer it as it is more minimalist. It gives you only what you need to get started, and you can grow from there. Note that it is still possible to run KDE apps when using Gnome. For example, I run kdetv and amarok under Gnome.

[fwojciec]

I can only really comment on Arch Linux, as I have not used any of the distros you mentioned for a significant period of time.

To me Arch belongs to a slightly different category than the other distros you mention in that it does not give you a pre-configured graphical work environment after installation, but rather a command line and a basic set of tools so that you can create the kind of system you want. The comparison to DSL is also misleading - Arch can be, of course, as light as you want it to be, but it can also be as bloated as you wish - it's completely your choice.

Arch does not have any gui configuration tools, everything is configured by editing conf files with a text editor. All programs come with default configurations, or as close to default as possible, and you generally have to set up everything by hand and explicitly (most things are not automated in Arch and no specific way of using a program is imposed on the user - that's a part of Arch philosophy).

Arch is a rolling release and can, in principle, brake every once in a while, so if you want something that is stable and "just works" forget about Arch. Having said that - during the time I have been using Arch I've never experienced a problem that would make my computer unusable. At the same time by using Arch I've learned enough about Linux that I am confident that I can fix any problem that comes up. The advantage of rolling release is, naturally, that you are able to use the latest and greatest of what Linux has to offer... I see you're using Gutsy, so I guess the rolling release aspect of Arch might actually be something that's appealing to you. Finally, at the end of the day Arch requires you to understand how Linux works, so you will have to read a lot and learn a lot about Linux in order to take the full advantage of this ingenious distribution.

If you're serious about installing Arch I strongly recommend that you first read about Arch a bit, check out Arch forums perhaps, and preferably print out the installation guide from here (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Arch_Linux_Install_Guide) because otherwise installing Arch is going to be a frustrating experience for you.

[s26c.sayan]

I can only really comment on Arch Linux, as I have not used any of the distros you mentioned for a significant period of time.

To me Arch belongs to a slightly different category than the other distros you mention in that it does not give you a pre-configured graphical work environment after installation, but rather a command line and a basic set of tools so that you can create the kind of system you want. The comparison to DSL is also misleading - Arch can be, of course, as light as you want it to be, but it can also be as bloated as you wish - it's completely your choice.

Arch does not have any gui configuration tools, everything is configured by editing conf files with a text editor. All programs come with default configurations, or as close to default as possible, and you generally have to set up everything by hand and explicitly (most things are not automated in Arch and no specific way of using a program is imposed on the user - that's a part of Arch philosophy).

Arch is a rolling release and can, in principle, brake every once in a while, so if you want something that is stable and "just works" forget about Arch. Having said that - during the time I have been using Arch I've never experienced a problem that would make my computer unusable. At the same time by using Arch I've learned enough about Linux that I am confident that I can fix any problem that comes up. The advantage of rolling release is, naturally, that you are able to use the latest and greatest of what Linux has to offer... I see you're using Gutsy, so I guess the rolling release aspect of Arch might actually be something that's appealing to you. Finally, at the end of the day Arch requires you to understand how Linux works, so you will have to read a lot and learn a lot about Linux in order to take the full advantage of this ingenious distribution.

If you're serious about installing Arch I strongly recommend that you first read about Arch a bit, check out Arch forums perhaps, and preferably print out the installation guide from here (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Arch_Linux_Install_Guide) because otherwise installing Arch is going to be a frustrating experience for you.


Same as my story with Arch...I agree in every point! :)

Arch Is a great distro, esp. if you have the resilience and will to learn! I learnt the ropes on this distro, and am using it now. In fact, I even created my own 'distrolet' of Arch...March Linx (March = My Arch :D)!!

[raul_]

Why Arch if you don't like Slackware? It's not the same distro of course, but they're similar. I love the easy to understand config files.

The Arch wiki is very very well written

[theonlyrealperson]

1. CentOS
- I really liked CentOS, far better than Fedora 7. Everything worked right, it was stable, and it looked professional (although not as pretty as Fedora, I'll concede that.) I only took it off my desktop PC because an update broke CUPS and I couldn't fix it.

2. PCLinuxOS
- It was well done, but something didn't sit right with me. I can't put my finger on it. It worked well but seemed slow for no reason. I don't have any major complaints about it, however.

3. Mepis
- Mepis I thought was really well done. I'm also waiting for the next release based on Debian.

4. OpenSuse
- I really like OpenSuse, and its currently running on my laptop. Works really well with the odd monitor situation I have (22" Samsung monitor and a crap ATI Radeon 7500). Professional looking, even more than CentOS. Everything works well BUT application installation. That is a mess. I desperately miss apt-get & debs. YaST is glacier slow, SMART is fast but doesn't seem to want to install certain things properly. If you're installing a new program (not an update), just download the rpm and code "yast -i [rpm name]". That's the fastest and easiest.

5. Arch Linux
- Never used it, but I want to. Hmmm, I have some extra hd space....

6. Mint Linux
- my previously preferred distribution. I can't say enough good things about it. All the best from Ubuntu with some added goodies (like the SLED menu, which I really like).

[SunnyRabbiera]

well for PCLinux I can personally say its a great distro, it might not always have the packages you want or have a large repo but its good if you want something that "just works"

Mepis is a good option, but i will wait on it if I were you as its going into a transition right now so its not advisable.

mint has the same issues that ubuntu does in the end as its basically the same thing.

Suse is owned by microsoft so thus eliminates it as a choice ;)

[ArtF10]

Linux Mint is my current prefered OS. It is very functional and good. It is Ubuntu with everything already added, done and beautified.....

Are the 3D effects such as Compiz Fusion and/orBeryl preinstalled as well?

EDIT: Never,mind: Here's tje answer: http://www.linuxmint.com/cassandra.html

Intriguing indeed.

[init1]

Mepis is great. Setting up wireless was signifigantly easier than in Ubuntu.

[cmat]

Arch Linux is really good but the set-up is pretty terrible. You really need to know what you're doing.

OpenSUSE was pretty good but the RPMs :(. debs are superior.