Best Linux?

[higashi]

I know it really depends, but in your opinion what linux is best? (:

which is best for old computers?

which is easiest to use?

which looks best?

which is best overall?

etc :)

[sumguy231]

Best Linux distriubtion?

Slackware.

(You thought I was going to say Ubuntu, didn't you?)

[webdude]

Best linux for old computers? I would go with a distro that has a light window manager like xubuntu or mint running fluxbox. Ubuntu would be too heavy for an old computer.

[bodhi.zazen]

Moved to other OS talk.

[darrelljon]

Best for old computers is DSL*
Easiest is Kubuntu (or possibly pcLinuxOS)
Best looking is Sabayon
My overall favorite is Kanotix
*DSL runs on older computers but I think Puppy is much easier

Are you asking because you have an old PC? If so, tell us the specs and your level of experience.

[67GTA]

There is a link at the top of the Other OS Talk forum for older computers.

[Majorix]

Easiest --> Xubuntu
Fastest --> Arch
Best looking --> openSUSE (KDE) or probably Sabayon.

I myself use all of them interchangeably :D

[higashi]

Best linux for old computers? I would go with a distro that has a light window manager like xubuntu or mint running fluxbox. Ubuntu would be too heavy for an old computer.

Actually, i am using ubuntu on a Very old computer.. it runs quite well :]

[higashi]

Best for old computers is DSL*
Easiest is Kubuntu (or possibly pcLinuxOS)
Best looking is Sabayon
My overall favorite is Kanotix
*DSL runs on older computers but I think Puppy is much easier

Are you asking because you have an old PC? If so, tell us the specs and your level of experience.

Yes, i am running a very old pc.. i hav quite a bit of experience (all from ubuntu),, but i dont know what specs means x]

[jrusso2]

I know it really depends, but in your opinion what linux is best? (:

which is best for old computers?

which is easiest to use?

which looks best?

which is best overall?

etc :)

best for old computers is puppy linux

easiest to use is PCLinuxOS or Linux Mint

Looks best Sabayon

best over all is Debian

[kellemes]

which is best for old computers? Debian Etch

which is easiest to use? Debian Lenny/Sid + KDE

which looks best? Debian Lenny/Sid + xfce or fvwm-crystal

which is best overall? Debian!

[chris4585]

I know it really depends, but in your opinion what linux is best? (:

which is best for old computers?

which is easiest to use?

which looks best?

which is best overall?

etc :)

DSL or Puppy linux for older computers

mint is easiest to use

sabayon looks the best

your own remaster is the best overall

[new2*buntu]

which is best for old computers? Debian Etch

which is easiest to use? Debian Lenny/Sid + KDE

which looks best? Debian Lenny/Sid + xfce or fvwm-crystal

which is best overall? Debian!

I like that. Especially the part about what looks best: since I'm running Lenny with XFce. Although I disagree about easiest to use. That would probably go to Ubuntu.

[manimal347]

No version of Linux worth using runs on really old hardware. Okay, well Deli Linux works okay on a 486 with 16 megabytes ram and a few hundred megabytes of disk space, but it's pretty basic, and anything that supports older hardware isn't worthwhile.

I like Debian for its stability, utmost transparency, and easy modularity, but will probably give ARCH Linux another go. Not on my production machine, though, not at least until I've had it running for a few months. Operating systems with rolling updates scare me.

Ubuntu is obviously the easiest, Linux Mint considered as an Ubuntu derivative. It's basically click and play if the LiveCD finds your hardware agreeable.

Which looks best? That's mostly an issue of how you configure it.

Which is best? Well, Debian Stable or CentOS are likely best for a server. Ubuntu is best for a Windows refugee or someone who doesn't want something too complex or unixy-feeling. ARCH and Gentoo are great for people who treat their computers the way some people treat American muscle cars. Puppy, Deli or DSL are probably best for antiquarian hardware. But really,
personal preference and user expectations must be taken into account. In short, there is no "best" distro. Heck, some people even still like Mandriva in 2008.

[manimal347]

which is best for old computers? Debian Etch

which is easiest to use? Debian Lenny/Sid + KDE

which looks best? Debian Lenny/Sid + xfce or fvwm-crystal

which is best overall? Debian!

As a fellow Debian user, do pardon me, but I think your excessively evangelizing this distribution.

It most certainly isn't the easiest, though it's also far from the hardest. It looks no different than most other distros when comparatively configured. Also, Debian needs 40 megabytes of ram just to begin the installer on x86 hardware! As Deli runs X in sixteen megabytes and supports 386-class CPU's, it certainly has better support for old machines, though yes, Debian can run on fairly old machines, especially if you stick to CLI or are very judicious in what you install for your xwindows environment and applications.

[r4ik]

Zenwalk (128MB)
Mint.
OpenSuSe.
Sidux.

Just my two cents.

[jaytek13]

And the moral of this thread - It's all personal opinion.

[tommcd]

Zenwalk is:
fast
up to date
easy to use, without the bloat
good for low end, underpowered machines
as stable as slackware
looks very good.
Zenwalk has been my main OS for over a year now.

[lespaul_rentals]

Old: Puppy Linux or Wolvix Cub.

Easiest to use: Linux Mint

Best appearance: openSUSE KDE, Dreamlinux

Best overall/my favorites: Arch, openSUSE 10.3 KDE, Kubuntu 7.04, Slackware 12, FreeNAS (for basic servers)

[pieisgood4589]

Fedora for the overall win. Its great!

[RebounD11]

Fedora for the overall win. Its great!

It is great... I just wish Cedega would work on it. It installs great but when I launch a game it crashes... with Segmantation Fault!

If I get that fixed I'll call it the best :D

Until then OpenSuSE 10.3 best (with SMART as package manager)
...and probably easiest for a GUI type user. :D

[eljoeb]

Best...?

It's all about personal preference. Appearance is pretty minor too, since Linux is so customizable. It really depends on how much effort you want to put in. If you want it working out of the box, you pretty much have that with Ubuntu. Other options are Opensuse, Mandriva, and Linux Mint. If you want more control over your system, try Arch or Debian. I guess. Honestly, with enough configuration, you can make any distro look like anything. I'm pretty sure my kdemod Arch looks a lot like Opensuse's gnome.


Quite honestly, I have no idea why threads like these keep appearing. I'm pretty sure there are 7 kazillion threads where people ask for another distro and everyone gives the same answers. That user will then try some out, and then create the obligatory thread about how much _____ sucks because it doesn't have apt.

Sigh... I need to stop coming here.

[bwtranch]

Easy=Ubuntu
Best=Gentoo

[finferflu]

Ok ok, something is wrong here. Everyone who has tried Arch just knows it's simply the best. So I infer that not many people have ever tried it. Why? I have no answer. :P

Kidding.

Seriously speaking, I think Arch does a pretty good job with old machines IF and only IF they are i686 architecture, because Arch only supports that, officially (there are some other projects which I don't know very well). It's not difficult if you don't mind reading some documentation before and while installing. Other than that it's fast, stable and easy to maintain.

[lespaul_rentals]

Ok ok, something is wrong here. Everyone who has tried Arch just knows it's simply the best. So I infer that not many people have ever tried it. Why? I have no answer. :P

What? I don't get what that's supposed to mean.

[bodhi.zazen]

What? I don't get what that's supposed to mean.

Arch Linux : http://www.archlinux.org/

Actually, I bet most people who try arch linux are frustrated by the installer. Arch Linux is my favorite distro, but it is not aimed at new users.

Arch is 1686 optimized, it is a rolling release, and very up to date. There is occasional breakage, but usually rapidly fixed (few days).

It is also very easy to compile, pacman (package manager) is awesome.

[eljoeb]

Arch Linux : http://www.archlinux.org/

Actually, I bet most people who try arch linux are frustrated by the installer. Arch Linux is my favorite distro, but it is not aimed at new users.

Arch is 1686 optimized, it is a rolling release, and very up to date. There is occasional breakage, but usually rapidly fixed (few days).

It is also very easy to compile, pacman (package manager) is awesome.

To a degree, I don't think Arch is hard at all. The beginner guide is pretty explicit and while its easy to screw stuff up, you gotta miss something when you read it. Pacman is either as good or better than apt, plus the AUR has almost anything you ever wanted. It's incredibly easy to use. The only knock against it is the lack of a graphical installer.

[bodhi.zazen]

To a degree, I don't think Arch is hard at all. The beginner guide is pretty explicit and while its easy to screw stuff up, you gotta miss something when you read it. Pacman is either as good or better than apt, plus the AUR has almost anything you ever wanted. It's incredibly easy to use. The only knock against it is the lack of a graphical installer.

Well, not I do not find it hard, but most people, especially new users, do. In my experience only 20 % or so users who try to install arch are both successful and stay with it. The ones who stay really love it, but that holds true for almost any distro. Not everyone seems to have the patience to read the install guide and a lot of of people seem to struggle with it.

The flip side is education. Once you install Arch, you know how to sys admin arch ...

[lespaul_rentals]

Well, not I do not find it hard, but most people, especially new users, do. In my experience only 20 % or so users who try to install arch are both successful and stay with it. The ones who stay really love it, but that holds true for almost any distro. Not everyone seems to have the patience to read the install guide and a lot of of people seem to struggle with it.

The flip side is education. Once you install Arch, you know how to sys admin arch ...

I didn't find it hard at all. I had to scan about 2 parts of the new user guide to figure out something about the configuration files, but that's it. I loved it.

[rfurman24]

I think Mint is by far the best linux distro. I love the idea of Arch but with so many great linux distros I refuse to waste my time with the pathetic installer. There is absolutely no reason why the installer could not simply allow a gui for setting up networks and picking a de. Debian has basically the same idea that Arch does and is so much easier. I like Debian alot but for me Mint has most of the stuff I would install in Debian anyways.

[lespaul_rentals]

I think Mint is by far the best linux distro. I love the idea of Arch but with so many great linux distros I refuse to waste my time with the pathetic installer. There is absolutely no reason why the installer could not simply allow a gui for setting up networks and picking a de. Debian has basically the same idea that Arch does and is so much easier. I like Debian alot but for me Mint has most of the stuff I would install in Debian anyways.

What are you talking about? I love Mint too, but your negative words about Arch are less than pleasant to read. The installer is hardly "pathetic" and to be honest, if you can't figure out the curses installer, config files for networking, and how to use Pacman to install your desktop environment, maybe Arch isn't for you. In my opinion you have no right to put down Arch, because it is not a problem with the distro but rather a lack of knowledge on your end. There is a distro for all of us and I'm happy you enjoy Mint and Debian but stop saying a distro is bad just because you aren't willing to learn how to use it.

[eljoeb]

I think Mint is by far the best linux distro. I love the idea of Arch but with so many great linux distros I refuse to waste my time with the pathetic installer. There is absolutely no reason why the installer could not simply allow a gui for setting up networks and picking a de. Debian has basically the same idea that Arch does and is so much easier. I like Debian alot but for me Mint has most of the stuff I would install in Debian anyways.

Honestly, I thought Debian was more of a pain to set up. But I guess you're right; FOR YOU Mint is better.

[rfurman24]

What are you talking about? I love Mint too, but your negative words about Arch are less than pleasant to read. The installer is hardly "pathetic" and to be honest, if you can't figure out the curses installer, config files for networking, and how to use Pacman to install your desktop environment, maybe Arch isn't for you. In my opinion you have no right to put down Arch, because it is not a problem with the distro but rather a lack of knowledge on your end. There is a distro for all of us and I'm happy you enjoy Mint and Debian but stop saying a distro is bad just because you aren't willing to learn how to use it.


Maybe you should reread my post. Nowhere in it did I say Arch was not a great distro. I said the installer was no good. I have tried almost every major linux distro and I just do not understand why it had to be so difficult. I think many more people including linux newbies would enjoy using Arch if not for the installation. It is not about weather or not someone can "figure it out" it is about why should you have to when there are dozens of other great distros that just work. I am also not trying to start a distro war I thought this topic was about expressing opinions. I guess I was wrong. Sorry.

[chris4585]

I on the other hand think that arch is great, i like the fact that i learn how to build my system. I dont know if thats the reason for it to be so "difficult" to insstall but it definitely helps me understand alot about linux, i think everyone should install a arch system at least once for the experience, but i also do like the easy GUI stuff too. It's just sometimes GUI seems too easy, i like a challenge

[b0ng0]

I tried Arch for a bit but found I kept running into problems and it just ended up eating into too much of my free time which sadly at the moment, I don't have much of.
HD weird spaz on me recently and for ease of use I installed Mint (previously had Gutsy) and I have to say it's probably the best version of linux i've used - very similar to Ubuntu but virtually no setup required and I love the minty theme, secks.

[eljoeb]

I on the other hand think that arch is great, i like the fact that i learn how to build my system. I dont know if thats the reason for it to be so "difficult" to insstall but it definitely helps me understand alot about linux, i think everyone should install a arch system at least once for the experience, but i also do like the easy GUI stuff too. It's just sometimes GUI seems too easy, i like a challenge

I really think you don't learn a whole lot about Linux, just Arch's own brand of Linux (much like Gentoo). Pacman and the Arch Build System are pretty much how you maintain your system. I would imagine if you want to really learn Linux, Slackware or Crux would be better.

[chris4585]

i've actually had slackware on my list to experiment with, and i just added crux

[fwojciec]

I really think you don't learn a whole lot about Linux, just Arch's own brand of Linux (much like Gentoo). Pacman and the Arch Build System are pretty much how you maintain your system. I would imagine if you want to really learn Linux, Slackware or Crux would be better.

I use both Arch and Crux -- both do things in their own way. While I see where you coming from, I tend to think that Arch is pretty vanilla. Most of it's tools (it's initsctipts, its PKGBUILDs, etc.) are just bash scripts, and they are pretty minimal in what they do. It's true that Crux is more stripped down in comparison to Arch, and certain things like kernel management are are more manual in Crux, but the skills from Arch are usually directly translatable to Crux and vice versa. The same is true for configurations, build instructions for packages and so on.

[b0ng0]

Yeah Arch is a fantastic learning experience and anyone remotely interested in how Linux operates should give it a go. But as far as being practical for your average computer user, it's not the "best". That's where the likes of *buntu, Mint, Fedora, etc excel.

[Northsider]

openSuse always looked cool to me, but I could never get it to install correctly. Ubuntu/Kubuntu has been my only real Linux os.