What is the best Linux system that you were using,and why?

[Tikkyca]

I was wondering what is the best linux system for you?
For me it is Ubuntu,
because that is my first linux system and works great,
mabie Kubuntu is faster a little,but i still like Ubuntu more.
My Ubuntu desktop:
http://twitpic.com/189p1i

[Barriehie]

Debian stable, no issues whatsoever!

[audiomick]

Well, Ubuntu is my best Linux system, but it is also my only one....;)

[_h_]

Ubuntu my one and only now. :)

[OldMerovingian]

After trying OpenSuse, Fedora 12, and (K)Ubuntu I have settled, for the time being on Ububntu. Since Kubuntu and Ubuntu are only different by way of desktop environments, it really wasn't a switch in distros as much as it was in the look.

Fedora had too many bugs for my system and I had to edit a few config files just to get it to work. Then the open source video driver kept causing my screen to go black.

OpenSuse had the same issues with the video card and would not allow me to dim my laptop screen. Part of this is ATIs fault for making a crappy driver though, so I don't hold it against Fedora or OpenSuse.

[swoll1980]

Ubuntu is the best for me. I like easy installation, and automatic configuration. All that techie crap is fun once, but after that I just want stuff to work with minimal effort on my part. I've tried more distros then I could ever hope to keep track of, and one thing I can guaranty, is that they are all the same, except for ease of installation, and package management. These myths about x distro is faster, or that distro is faster, or compiling your own programs, or kernel is faster, is a bunch of crap. It's all dependent on the services that are running, and what programs you are using. If you have a modern machine none of it matters at all.

[squilookle]

Arch. I like having the latest software with no fuss, and I like being able to choose what is running.

I've also tried and liked Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora (but the computer ran quite hot with Fedora, don't know why), Debian, Crunchbang, Mint, and Slackware.

[chris200x9]

I have arch with lxde running, I used to be really into fluxbox and openbox but then I was like screw it. :P

[donkyhotay]

I've used lots of distro's including fedora, arch, and debian. I keep ending up back at ubuntu because it's a nice balance and has more of the features I like then the others.

[JDShu]

Ubuntu, because its easy. I've been wondering if I should switch to Arch for the more recent, and vanilla, packages but really... it seems like a hassle to install and maintain.

[karthick87]

The one and only ubuntu..Works great :)

[rolnics]

Ubuntu, just because its been on my system since my successful move away from windows and also I always know where the live-cd of it is!!

Having said that I've tried Fedora which just felt sluggish and horrible on my system. Mandriva I will try again as once I got it running I liked. OpenSuse again I liked so I'm sure I'll give it another go. I've also tried a few others, but Ubuntu just seems to be the one that works for me.

[Mustard]

The best one for me is the one that is working and performing the task I want it to, when I need it to. Often that is Ubuntu, but sometimes its not. Arch is filling some holes in useability for me atm.

Sometimes a small change in policy with regards to software, can lead to me having issues with tasks I would like to perform. When that happens I rely on other distros to cover Ubuntu's shortfalls.

When trying to get a laptop running with a dodgy keyboard and a dead internal hard drive, Puppy linux was the 'best system' in that scenario.

Whatever works is the best. :)

[scouser73]

I started off using Ubuntu then distro-hopped to; Fedora, Linux Mint & OpenSuse. The reason I came back to using Ubuntu was the community support & the fact that I actually like using Ubuntu as the operating system of choice.

[Phrea]

I distro hopped for a while, a long time ago, went back to Windows [a decade ago, Linux wasn't very desktop friendly], rediscovered Linux, and Ubuntu in particular, and stayed with it.

[ratcheer]

So far, Ubuntu Karmic is the only Linux installation I have ever stuck with for more than a couple of months. I expect I will replace it with Lucid when that is released.

Why? Most stuff works well. I can run apps I like. It looks good.

Tim

[gymophett]

all that techie crap is fun once, but after that i just want stuff to work with minimal effort on my part.

+1

[phillychease]

My Ubuntu desktop:
http://twitpic.com/189p1i

you spelled "awesome" wrong! :)

[gnupipe]

Best and fastest Linux system I have used: (located at university in US)

Compute nodes: 320
CPU:s 2560
Total memory: 7680 GB
Cpu type: Quad-core Intel Nehalem (2.8 GHz)

[neu5eeCh]

[Distros] are all the same, except for ease of installation, and package management.

I've gone through about 15 of 16 distros so far, and I haven't found that to be true. There are many smaller differences that add up - such as small additions to Nautilus, let's say; or the management of themes; or how drivers are handled.



These myths about x distro is faster, or that distro is faster, or compiling your own programs, or kernel is faster, is a bunch of crap.

I would have agreed a couple of weeks ago, but not now. For instance, I dual boot this very laptop with PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu. Both distros use Gnome and yet Gnome's responsiveness, on PCLOS, is dramatically slower and more sluggish. I also notice a considerable speed difference in how smoothly documents scroll and browsers render pages. I have no idea what causes the difference, but it's substantial.

[swoll1980]

I've gone through about 15 of 16 distros so far, and I haven't found that to be true. There are many smaller differences that add up - such as small additions to Nautilus, let's say; or the management of themes; or how drivers are handled.



These things you just listed fall under package management. No?

[swoll1980]

I would have agreed a couple of weeks ago, but not now. For instance, I dual boot this very laptop with PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu. Both distros use Gnome and yet Gnome's responsiveness, on PCLOS, is dramatically slower and more sluggish. I also notice a considerable speed difference in how smoothly documents scroll and browsers render pages. I have no idea what causes the difference, but it's substantial.

Borked installation maybe? Something didn't get configured right?

[Tibuda]

I would answer Crunchbang for how they have bundled Openbox with out-of-the-box functionality, but ArchLinux for the package management (rolling release and AUR).

[wojox]

It really depends on your system specs. I dual boot Ubuntu 9.10 and Fedora 12 on my desktop. Arch on my laptop and Cli install of Debian Lenny for my server.

[d3v1150m471c]

I've used a few and I like kubuntu.

[pseudo_nz]

Kubuntu. I started with Mandrake, and have tried Xandros, Mandriva, Ubuntu and Fedora. I really liked Fedora 10 and the cutting edge side of things, but came back to K/Ubuntu because I prefer the community and the range of stuff available in the repos.

[markbuntu]

I still use Hardy as my main distro. It is very rock solid and all dialed in how I like it. I also have jaunty and Karmic and Mandriva and SUSe and Debian but I don't use them much so will probably get rid of them all soon. I am testing Lucid and it looks very promising.

I have kuki on my aspire one netbook. Small fast lightweight works OOB, does what I need.

[pickboy87]

I don't know about 'best' distro, but I'm currently using Arch Linux. I'm able to fully...and I do mean fully customize the installation. I'm able to choose what's running and what I want installed.

I'm down to a 2.2 gig installation and if I really wanted, I could hit below 2 gigs with ALL my applications.

[desnaike]

I started with ubu 6.06 then 8.04,8.10,9.04 now karmic tried mandriva,mepis,opensuse,pclinuxos,linux mint and I always have problems with package management dependencies and codecs. Ubuntu works for me.

[seenthelite]

Ubuntu is the best for me. I like easy installation, and automatic configuration. All that techie crap is fun once, but after that I just want stuff to work with minimal effort on my part. I've tried more distros then I could ever hope to keep track of, and one thing I can guaranty, is that they are all the same, except for ease of installation, and package management. These myths about x distro is faster, or that distro is faster, or compiling your own programs, or kernel is faster, is a bunch of crap. It's all dependent on the services that are running, and what programs you are using. If you have a modern machine none of it matters at all.

I totally agree, I have Mandriva 2010 on one box because it supports the hardware better on that box than Ubuntu does. And I'm playing with Ubuntu 10.04 on another box just out of curiosity if it works when released I'll keep it.

[kelvin spratt]

Its Arch all the way for me, And yes I do keep trying to come back to Ubuntu, But it just does not feel right like Arch does.

[itreius]

Arch and Debian testing

[NightwishFan]

Ubuntu 64-bit, which is just awesome for digital media work. Debian on my older machines, stable as a rock.

[Khakilang]

I started when I bought a book "Practical Guide To Ubuntu Linux" by Mark Sobell. It come with 8.10 than I use 9.04 and now 9.10 all upgrade on the same machine and its work great. So I figure why bother with other Distro. If it ain't broke why fix it that's what the old saying goes and I am happy with it.

[the_karmic_koala]

UBUNTU For sure...and (personally) I think ubuntu 9.10 is alot faster than Kubuntu 9.10...however they are on different computers ...but ubuntu is the raw linux powerhouse i've always wanted bbbwahahaha

i'm running a 2.2 ghz amd on an am3 gigabyte mother board 3gb ram and an integrated geforce 7025 (which suprisingly pumps out some pretty good graphics)


Here's my desktop ^_^

[cascade9]

Currently on 2 distros mainly.
Debian Lenny. Stable, reliable enoguh that I've never had it fail on me yet, easy enough to work on.
Debian Sid. Very up to date kernel and programs, somethings things bork themselves but I've learned a lot during the fixing process.

I'm still installing and testing other distros as I dl .isos and find time to install them and give them a decent run.


Ubuntu is the best for me. I like easy installation, and automatic configuration. All that techie crap is fun once, but after that I just want stuff to work with minimal effort on my part. I've tried more distros then I could ever hope to keep track of, and one thing I can guaranty, is that they are all the same, except for ease of installation, and package management. These myths about x distro is faster, or that distro is faster, or compiling your own programs, or kernel is faster, is a bunch of crap. It's all dependent on the services that are running, and what programs you are using. If you have a modern machine none of it matters at all.

I totally disagree. Even when you just look at kernels, there can be major performance differences between them-

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_lucid_kernels&num=1

Once you start factoring in other stuff like the version of gnome, x-server, gcc, etc the differences start to add up-

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora12_ubuntu910&num=1

That is just 2 things I already happned to be looking at, if you want to hae a look around the phoronix articles list you'll find lots of other examples-

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=phoronix_articles

Yes, lots of things perfrom virtually the same, but not everything. Its not 'myths' that some things are faster than others. As for exactly what is faster, and if its worth compiling your own programs, etc is what is debatable.

[Zoot7]

Debian Stable and the offical releases of Slackware. Nothing matches either for stability IMO.

[ubunc]

Ubuntu 64bit. Cause now I can use ChromePlus (http://www.chromeplus.org) as my browser!:popcorn:

[lz1dsb]

Ubuntu Karmic 64 is my choice. I haven't tried many distros though.
I've only tested the feel and look of Debian and CentOS. But I only ran them on a VMs.
I find the right balance in Ubuntu. The easiness of use, and also the ability to do more advanced stuff and configurations if you like/can.
I also find such a big plus that there's such a big community around Ubuntu. So far in the forums I've been able to find all the information I was looking for...

Cheers,
Boyan

[fugazi32]

Xubuntu all the way for me! Used to use SuSE.
I prefer lighter window managers/desktops...I don't see the appeal of KDE or Gnome, they're ugly bloatware to me.

apt-get is the main reason I stick with Xubuntu, everything is so easy to find! :D

[llawwehttam]

I use various distros for various machines. I really like debian stable but at the moment I use arch on my desktop and servers and ubuntu on my laptop.

I may be switching to debian though as ubuntu has been giving me grief with audio crackling and graphics drivers.

I have used ( and discarded) fedora, red hat, opensuse, opensolaris, centOS , mandriva and slackware.

I have used and like , ubuntu, arch, debian, freeBSD, mint.

[forrestcupp]

I was wondering what is the best linux system for you?

Whichever one Linus is currently using. :)

You should have made a poll. I'll bet there are 200% more Arch users on the Ubuntu Forums than there are Ubuntu users.

[ibuclaw]

Debian

It was the only system to support my Foxconn board back in 2006.

[hhh]

...ubuntu has been giving me grief with audio crackling...
There's a simple fix for that...
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/ubuntu-tip-how-to-fix-crackling-noise-on-hda-audio-cards-in-ubuntu-9-10.html#more-3112

And as long as I'm here, Karmic running standalone Openbox/tint2. Wireless worked out of the box, my bugs are ironed out and it is fast.

[markbuntu]

Whichever one Linus is currently using. :)

You should have made a poll. I'll bet there are 200% more Arch users on the Ubuntu Forums than there are Ubuntu users.

I think Linus is using Fedora these days.

[swoll1980]

Ubuntu is the best for me. I like easy installation, and automatic configuration. All that techie crap is fun once, but after that I just want stuff to work with minimal effort on my part. I've tried more distros then I could ever hope to keep track of, and one thing I can guaranty, is that they are all the same, except for ease of installation, and package management. These myths about x distro is faster, or that distro is faster, or compiling your own programs, or kernel is faster, is a bunch of crap. It's all dependent on the services that are running, and what programs you are using. If you have a modern machine none of it matters at all.


Currently on 2 distros mainly.
Debian Lenny. Stable, reliable enoguh that I've never had it fail on me yet, easy enough to work on.
Debian Sid. Very up to date kernel and programs, somethings things bork themselves but I've learned a lot during the fixing process.

I'm still installing and testing other distros as I dl .isos and find time to install them and give them a decent run.



I totally disagree. Even when you just look at kernels, there can be major performance differences between them-

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_lucid_kernels&num=1

Once you start factoring in other stuff like the version of gnome, x-server, gcc, etc the differences start to add up-

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora12_ubuntu910&num=1

That is just 2 things I already happned to be looking at, if you want to hae a look around the phoronix articles list you'll find lots of other examples-

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=phoronix_articles

Yes, lots of things perfrom virtually the same, but not everything. Its not 'myths' that some things are faster than others. As for exactly what is faster, and if its worth compiling your own programs, etc is what is debatable.

I don't believe in benchmarks. I believe in what I see with my on eyes, if there are differences, they are way to small to notice.

[cascade9]

I would have agreed a couple of weeks ago, but not now. For instance, I dual boot this very laptop with PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu. Both distros use Gnome and yet Gnome's responsiveness, on PCLOS, is dramatically slower and more sluggish. I also notice a considerable speed difference in how smoothly documents scroll and browsers render pages. I have no idea what causes the difference, but it's substantial.Borked installation maybe? Something didn't get configured right?

Benchmarking is the only way to measure the differences in speed between distros. I have also noticed speed differences between distros, just from playing around with them, not even going into benchmarking.

Sure, you might not notice perfomance differences between distros, but other people do. Its not just me and VTPoet making stuff up, there is hard data that shows perfromance differences. To suggest that there is no difference, then reply with 'I dont believe in benchmarking' when someone shows you hard figures seems.....strange.

[brian mcgee]

Ubuntu for home. Debian / CentOS for servers. If you're looking for super stable but want to be able to easily install some of the latest software, I'd recommend Debian stable + debian backports.

[thetaLord]

This is ubuntuforums.
Majority will say Ubuntu is the best.

Post the same question in fedora forums, then fedora will be the best.

Me, Linux Mint.

[NightwishFan]

I was thinking everyone would say Arch.

[seenthelite]

I noticed a lot of support for Debian stable I wondering what is the best method to download and install it.

[NightwishFan]

32-bit. It even has a graphical install. Enjoy. :D
http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/5.0.4/i386/iso-cd/debian-504-i386-CD-1.iso

[Andreas1]

Debian Stable

[Andreas1]

I noticed a lot of support for Debian stable I wondering what is the best method to download and install it.

there are about 30 cd images containing all packages, sorted by popularity. i always use CD1, preferably downloaded via bittorrent.

http://www.debian.org/distrib/

[Axelpalm]

Slackware. Once it is installed it just works. ...and works...
You get bored.
Then dualboot with other distros to feel the difference. And you feel...

[ibuclaw]

I recommend Debian Testing, considering it is nearing stable (and running just fine here :))

i386 image (http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/squeeze_di_alpha1/i386/iso-cd/) - amd64 image (http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/squeeze_di_alpha1/amd64/iso-cd/)

And you *always* choose CD1, as that has the installer on it. All the other CDs just contain extra packages / is a repository on a CD-ROM.

Regards
Iain

[NightwishFan]

Just reinstalled my Debian Sid with Gnome. It boots using 130mb of RAM. I have made my choice of OS..

[cascade9]

I recommend Debian Testing, considering it is nearing stable (and running just fine here :))

And you *always* choose CD1, as that has the installer on it. All the other CDs just contain extra packages / is a repository on a CD-ROM.


Not that I think you dont know ibclaw, but for anyone new to debian, there is KDE CD1 and Xfce+LxdeCD1 versions as well....you dont have to install the gnome version and then install KDE, Xfce or Lxde if you want them instead. Also, DVD1 will work fine as well ;)

[MisfitI38]

What is the best Linux system that you were using..
Arch.

and why?
Very simple, very easy to understand base system and init. Succinctly commented and streamlined configuration files. Easy and expedient to personalize and customize the base system. The availability of a ports system, and a fast, simple package manager whose output is human readable and relevant.

I get annoyed easily at other distros.
Example 1:


root@debian_lenny:~# apt-get install guake
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package guake
20,000+ packages. The first one I need is unavailable because it's too new. FAIL.

2: I set the #EDITOR variable to vim. So,

root@debian:~# echo $EDITOR
vim
Ok, but...


root@debian_lenny:~# visudo

GNU nano 2.0.7 File: /etc/sudoers.tmp

# /etc/sudoers
#
# This file MUST be edited with the 'visudo' command as root.
#
# See the man page for details on how to write a sudoers file.
#

Defaults env_reset

# Host alias specification

# User alias specification

# Cmnd alias specification

# User privilege specification
root ALL=(ALL) ALL

# Uncomment to allow members of group sudo to not need a password
# (Note that later entries override this, so you might need to move
# it further down)
%sudo ALL=NOPASSWD: ALL

[ Read 22 lines ]
^G Get Help ^O WriteOut ^R Read File ^Y Prev Page ^K Cut Text ^C Cur Pos
^X Exit ^J Justify ^W Where Is ^V Next Page ^U UnCut Text ^T To Spell
$EDITOR is vim, but visudo opens nano. FAIL.
3: Why? Because:

root@debian_lenny:~# ls -l /usr/bin/editor
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 2010-02-13 14:44 /usr/bin/editor -> /etc/alternatives/editor
*sigh*

root@debian_lenny:~# ls -l /etc/alternatives/editor
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2010-02-13 14:44 /etc/alternatives/editor -> /bin/nano
LOL. FAIL. The system is fighting me here. Further, this small symlink-to-another-symlink-to-an-undesirable-default example just epitomizes the messy, littered, overly and unnecessarily complex nature of other distros that wears on you after getting a taste of a minimalist approach.

Not to take anything away from Debian. Debian is, of course, a high-quality and excellent system. But, I personally prefer the Arch Way.

[ashwinrao]

Ubuntu 9.10 64 bit ! The complete OS which gives me more than what I have expected! I'm satisfied in such a way that I didn't looked for other Linux OS's.

[caravel]

Debian Stable/Testing/Unstable - hands down, without a doubt.

I have used Mandriva, openSUSE, Fedora and Ubuntu in the past and nothing I've tried so far comes close to Debian. Stable is rock solid and even testing is in a far more stable state than Ubuntu 9.10.

I run Stable at the moment as my main system and if you want something that "just works" and doesn't give you any grief, then Debian is your best bet.