

Ask HN: why do you run this Linux distribution? - old-gregg

Howdy fellow Linux fans.<p>I'll be brief: what is the point of linux distros other than Debian-derived ones, Arch and Gentoo? Those 3 all have very distinct characteristics are are <i>very</i> different from each other, so...<p>I have a computer I can play with and I was thinking about tinkering with a new Linux distro just for fun. I've used Ubuntu, Gentoo and Arch in the past (settled on Arch and love it), so why would I want to try out SUSE, Fedora or Mandriva? Their descriptions on distrowatch are quite vague.
======
tygorius
Just a thought. You might want to consider one of the BSD variants, just to
explore a somewhat different system architecture.

For everyday use, I find Ubuntu good enough, although I do wish they'd break
fewer things every six months. I suspect I'll eventually migrate my Arch usage
from "tinkering" to everyday usage.

Another thought: Tiny Core Linux - a minimalist distribution that runs out of
RAM. The ISO image is only 10 MB, and the design is based on only loading
those applications you need when you're using them. There are tons of
applications already packaged online, so many people find it sufficient as
their everyday OS. Personally, I put it in the tinkering category like Arch
because the design is based on a specific design attitude that's different
from the mainline distributions.

------
Mithrandir
Fedora, unlike Ubuntu, has zero proprietary software in its repositories. It,
however, has firmware included with it which is why it's not on the FSF's list
of approved distros.

I have not tried SUSE or Mandriva, but both have different features other
distros don't.

I like Trisquel, as it's 100% free-as-in-freedom and it looks really cool. :)

~~~
madhouse
The reason you shouldn't really compare Fedora and Ubuntu, is that Ubuntu is a
commercial distribution, while Fedora is not. If you want to compare, compare
Ubuntu with RHLES or Fedora with Debian.

Like Fedora, Debian has no proprietary software in it (yes, there is non-free,
but that one is not part of the distribution).

~~~
hasenj
Ubuntu is no more commercial than Fedora.

1\. You don't pay money for it. 2\. The company behind it uses it to make
money.

In Fedora's case, it's kind of a public beta of RHEL. In Ubuntu's case,
Canonical provides support and professional services, although it's not
profitable yet.

Also, Ubuntu comes by default with no non-free software. Although now I think
there's an option in the installer to install MP3 and stuff that's restricted
by patents. (not sure if it also installs non-free stuff like Flash).

~~~
madhouse
Ubuntu comes with proprietary NVidia & ATI drivers, last I checked, along with
a bunch of other things in restricted, which is part of the default install.

So yeah, Ubuntu DOES come with non-free software by default, and the
restricted repo is part of the default sources.list, to allow you to install
even more non-free software easily.

By commercial, I meant they're (trying) to make money off of it, which they
certainly do. There's a whole lot of things built around the distribution
(Ubuntu One, support, etc) that in my reading, make the distribution
commercial, or at least heavily commercially backed (as opposed to being
community driven).

------
tzs
Well, for one thing, RPM-based distributions are the leaders in the enterprise
market. They are also the only ones, I believe, that actually make money. If
you look at where the contributions to Linux come from, especially in the
kernel, the employees of those distributions are contributing much more than
those of the other distributions.

For instance, in 2009, the top Linux contributors were Red Hat (12%), Intel
(8%), IBM and Novell (6% each), and Oracle (3%).

IBM offers, I believe, Red Hat and SUSE on its mainframes. Oracle offers their
own version of Red Hat. So that's 27% of contributions to the kernel coming
from companies focused on RPM-based distributions.

------
peelle
As the others say have said. Depending on what your looking for will determine
what is right for you.

I use Mandriva. I use it because it feels right for me.

Things I really like about it. 1\. Broke from Red Hat. 2\. KDE. 3\. It has a
centralized and useful tool set for managing the system. 4\. It's packaging
system is nice. 5\. <http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/> 6\. Power Pack has lots of
goodies in it. 7\. etc,....

------
eccp
I use Ubuntu on a daily basis, but I've tried Gentoo, Linux from Scratch and
FreeBSD on VirtualBox.

In those, I was looking for the experience of building all these layers of
software, one on top of the other, like a set of dominoes falling backwards in
time. After a few hours, you get a giant, baroque, colorful picture of
software tools which built itself, and it's for you to use. I can't think of
any other professional discipline which allows you to do so.

------
karthikm
CentOS is a good choice if you want to run a server for commercial purposes. I
use Fedora (its almost the same as centOS) for my development desktop as it
mimicks my server setup. I tried Ubuntu for my server and it didn't work out
to be that stable. However a couple of my friends in other startups found
Ubuntu to be working fine for them on their production servers. Another distro
I use a lot is Backtrack ;)

------
mvip
It really depends on what you're looking for and looking to do. I personally
prefer Ubuntu's LTS releases for day-to-day use, but for the production
servers, I prefer stepping out of Linux and into FreeBSD. I've found it to be
much more robust, while at the same time not holding you back to ancient
software versions (like CentOS/RHEL).

Yet, it really comes down to your preference.

------
mvalente
Try out <http://gobolinux.org/>

\-- MV

------
LInuxFedora
Fedora is great.

