PSA: Linux distributions other than Ubuntu and Mint exist.

[Kasyx]

Don't get me wrong; Ubuntu and Mint are great. They're easy to use, and relatively quick to grasp, so I can understand that everyone tends to use them, but can we give some other Linux distributions some love every now and then?

If you see Linux as nothing more than a means to an end to get something done, stop reading now. Ubuntu is great for what you need. Stick to it.

The reason I have veered away from distributions such as Mint and Ubuntu is that they make knowing simply the bare minimum okay, and I am not okay with that. I don't know about you, but I want my Linux distribution to be both user-friendly and powerful, and the distributions geared towards new users and users who just want to "git'er done" are too watered down for me. I want to hack around in the CLI for two hours just to get something to work. I love it when I reinstall and something doesn't work and I have to spend the weekend trying to fix it. Why? Because I learn something from it.

Now, I understand that hacking away at the CLI for hours doesn't sound that appetizing to many, but there are some people out there who love it just as much as me.

So here is what I propose:

While Ubuntu is an excellent place for new users to start, I think that our advice on which distribution to install should be based on what they are looking for, rather than a knee-jerk response of "UBUNTU!" or "LINUX MINT!". If they just want to give Linux a shot as an alternative to Windows, then Ubuntu or Mint would be great. But if they actually want to learn Linux, we have to remember that there are other distributions out there. Gentoo, CentOS, Red Hat, SuSE, PCLinuxOS, Arch Linux, LFS, etc. etc.

You know which distribution I started on? Gentoo. Why? Because it was hard, and that's exactly why I loved it. Now, I'm not saying that Ubuntu or Mint are bad distributions; on the contrary, they have brought Linux to a whole new user-base, and they deserve a lot of respect for that. But one of the most important aspects of Linux is choice, and right now all we seem to be giving users interested in Linux is the choice between Ubuntu and Mint.

 

[kingrob]

I think the "landscape" has changed a fair bit, from how things were and used to work in the year 2000.

The only way that Linux will survive, is if young people keep buying into it. And they all have smartphones nowadays. And if they plug it into their pc/notebook, they expect it to sync/copy music/contacts, etc straight away. So, if it doesn't do that, it's off to Windows 7 or Mac OS.

If Linux must stay "a hard and difficult OS" to use, it's already dead, will stay a "geeky OS" & will only reside in a Virtual Box for years to come.

But, there is hope. Mark Shuttleworth realised this & gave us Ubuntu - and people started using it, keeping Linux alive and kicking.

I actually predict distros like Gentoo to become extinct in the near future.

 

[Kasyx]

I think the "landscape" has changed a fair bit, from how things were and used to work in the year 2000.

The only way that Linux will survive, is if young people keep buying into it. And they all have smartphones nowadays. And if they plug it into their pc/notebook, they expect it to sync/copy music/contacts, etc straight away. So, if it doesn't do that, it's off to Windows 7 or Mac OS.

If Linux must stay "a hard and difficult OS" to use, it's already dead, will stay a "geeky OS" & will only reside in a Virtual Box for years to come.

But, there is hope. Mark Shuttleworth realised this & gave us Ubuntu - and people started using it, keeping Linux alive and kicking.

I actually predict distros like Gentoo to become extinct in the near future.

I completely agree that, in order for Linux to grow, distributions like Ubuntu must exist. But that is not to say that it should be the only distribution available because then we're right back with Windows. And I don't think Linux should remain difficult, but rather that it should remain as powerful as it is without usability simplifying it to the point of click and snore.

You must also remember that there is a lot more to the Linux market economy than the desktop (i.e. Ubuntu). Linux holds a massive share in the server market, and there is no way they are using Ubuntu for that.

Ubuntu has it's place, but I think that for someone who actively wants to learn Linux, it is not the way to go. And I think we should take that into consideration before yelling UBUNTU to anyone who will listen.

 

[Tacet]

Conflicting though they might be, I actually agree with all posts above. I also love tinkering a bit - when I started Linux I ran through Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and even Xubuntu. Then I discovered Gentoo, and I was hooked. I'm currently running Fedora on my netbook, simply because I didn't have enough time when installing to do a proper Gentoo config.

But very few people actually like tinkering, and most people see the CLI as something intimidating and scary. The key words at the moment are "working out of the box", and "plug and play" and "intuitive interface". People want ease of use, and the more involved distros aren't giving that to them. So yeah, I suspect that something like Gentoo will stay a geeky OS, and Ubuntu might just be the overall saving grace of Linux.

*Edit, as Kasyx replied before I could.
I don't think someone working in the server environment can be classified as a typical home user. Your typical home user don't want to learn the OS, they just want to use it. For someone wanting to learn, well, gloves off, and give them something nice to play on. Gentoo sounds perfect.

 

[sn3rd]

I don't think that ubuntu is a bad choice, even for those wanting to "tinker"; it's not like it removes the configurability. One of the main differences is that it doesn't make the tinkering compulsary.

And while ubuntuforums is great for the average issues that people encounter, most problems are only solvable by posts on gentoo (etc) mailing lists.

So I think that both distros like gentoo and distros like ubuntu are necessary for the growth of Linux.

And CentOS, sure... But Red Hat?

 

[zamicro]

I have been where Kasyx is now. I used to love to tinker with it. But now as my time have become a lot more scarce, I do not want to do it anymore. Currently I am running Fedora on a server, and I am actually looking for something else. I need something that I do not need to upgrade continuously, so I am looking for a more LTS type of distribution. I tried ubuntu server, but here I agree with Kasyx. They tried to make it too simple to use and if you have special requirements, it becomes a huge job to get it done. I will probably look into CentOS next.

Thus after a lot of babbling, which I can sum up as: I agree with both of you. The need for both types is there in the market.

 

[Kasyx]

I have been where Kasyx is now. I used to love to tinker with it. But now as my time have become a lot more scarce, I do not want to do it anymore. Currently I am running Fedora on a server, and I am actually looking for something else. I need something that I do not need to upgrade continuously, so I am looking for a more LTS type of distribution. I tried ubuntu server, but here I agree with Kasyx. They tried to make it too simple to use and if you have special requirements, it becomes a huge job to get it done. I will probably look into CentOS next.

Thus after a lot of babbling, which I can sum up as: I agree with both of you. The need for both types is there in the market.

Definitely, and the reason this thread exists is because I think it prudent that we inform users who are new to Linux of both, instead of just yelling UBUNTU at them and leaving it at that.

I recommend looking into Arch Linux - excellent documentation and community support, extremely modular, and exceptionally stable. I run Arch on all my servers.

 

[Tinuva]

Arch Linux is great, however it becomes tedious when you need to use it as a server and keep on updating it.

I have setup a bunch of servers on CentOS, one I took the leap and cron'd (scheduled) auto updates as a fun thing. Funny its the best up to date box ever. Sadly I can't say the same for the CentOS servers running Plesk, blaming Plesk for that of coarse.

 

[Logicklz]

ArchLinux basically destroyed my Ubuntu and Mint experience.
After you install ArchLinux on your machine there is no return.
Ubuntu will feels like something you need to give your grandparents.
It's not that hard to install and you can feel the speed difference.

 

[Kasyx]

ArchLinux basically destroyed my Ubuntu and Mint experience.
After you install ArchLinux on your machine there is no return.
Ubuntu will feels like something you need to give your grandparents.
It's not that hard to install and you can feel the speed difference.

I know exactly how you feel.

 

[w1z4rd]

I use Ubuntu because its simple to work. I have decent hardware and dont need to spend hours compiling a gentoo install.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think the "landscape" has changed a fair bit, from how things were and used to work in the year 2000.

The only way that Linux will survive, is if young people keep buying into it. And they all have smartphones nowadays. And if they plug it into their pc/notebook, they expect it to sync/copy music/contacts, etc straight away. So, if it doesn't do that, it's off to Windows 7 or Mac OS.

If Linux must stay "a hard and difficult OS" to use, it's already dead, will stay a "geeky OS" & will only reside in a Virtual Box for years to come.

But, there is hope. Mark Shuttleworth realised this & gave us Ubuntu - and people started using it, keeping Linux alive and kicking.

I actually predict distros like Gentoo to become extinct in the near future.

You sir are a god amongst men. The OP is the reason why Linux was little other than a server room OS or academic curiosity for much of its lifespan. Only when Shuttleworth realized what would be necessary for Mom and Pop to use it, did the possibility of it one day being sold preinstalled exist.

Off topic: I love listening to people who hate on Ubuntu because they liked Linux back before it was cool.

 

[Kasyx]

You sir are a god amongst men. The OP is the reason why Linux was little other than a server room OS or academic curiosity for much of its lifespan. Only when Shuttleworth realized what would be necessary for Mom and Pop to use it, did the possibility of it one day being sold preinstalled exist.

Off topic: I love listening to people who hate on Ubuntu because they liked Linux back before it was cool.

Seems pretty obvious you didn't actually read anything but verbs in my posts...

I don't "hate" Ubuntu, and there is no need to equate me to the reason Linux was once nothing but a server-room OS. If you had bothered to read what I had actually said before getting a carrot up your ass about "Ubuntu hate", you would realize that I think Ubuntu is actually great, and it has done a lot for the Linux market. You would also notice that I was merely requesting that people suggest Linux distributions to new users based on what they are actually looking for, instead of just saying "Ubuntu".

So what say you set your douchebaggery to stun, and actually read my posts before projectile vomiting your inane, misguided comments all over my thread.

 

[Ancalagon]

Seems pretty obvious you didn't actually read anything but verbs in my posts...

I don't "hate" Ubuntu, and there is no need to equate me to the reason Linux was once nothing but a server-room OS. If you had bothered to read what I had actually said before getting a carrot up your ass about "Ubuntu hate", you would realize that I think Ubuntu is actually great, and it has done a lot for the Linux market. You would also notice that I was merely requesting that people suggest Linux distributions to new users based on what they are actually looking for, instead of just saying "Ubuntu".

So what say you set your douchebaggery to stun, and actually read my posts before projectile vomiting your inane, misguided comments all over my thread.

While I apologize for not reading your post more thoroughly, your remarks reflect worse on you than they do on me. A very poor way to engage in discussions.

Nevertheless, yes, you do say that Ubuntu is a good place to start, and for that I applaud you. I do not applaud you for wanting to use Gentoo because it is difficult - it sounds a lot like the reasons that people usually give for shunning any kind of graphical user interface and preferring the terminal, and that kind of attitude belongs firmly in the dark ages. I like tinkering and I like configuring, but I hate wasted time and confusing methods of accomplishing things.

Linux needs people who want to make things easier for everyone, while at the same time preserving what makes Linux what it is - namely its openness, inclusion and customizability.

 

[MyWorld]

Blah blah blah....

You are only here to pick a fight and not to have an open discussion on what the OP stated, why not just move along or become civil?

I actually predict distros like Gentoo to become extinct in the near future.

I do not think so. Gentoo maybe because of unstable infighting and in-house politics, but there is still a huge space to be filled with such distributions.
These distros are the test-beds and their users the lab rats (I mean that in a good way) to iron out many, many bugs and features in Linux, especially on the kernel level.

Linus also agrees that there should be no CLi, but I do not agree, was it not for the geeky CLi users Linux would have never become as stable as it did. If we loose the CLi experience then Linux is doomed as the next WindowsME/Vista.

For years, over a decade, Linux was moulded and tested, abused by everyone who considered themselves a geek. This acid test made it a rock solid environment to work from.

Ubuntu is great in that you install it and forget about it, but that would not satisfy me, I need something more. If there is still one person here who do not know that I was a Gentoo fanatic then they are very new to this section, but I agree with what one person said above, it just became too much. If you are strapped for time then Gentoo is not the way to go, therefore Arch was then next logical choice.

Having said that I have realized just how out of touch one can get with Linux even though I only use Linux, Gentoo forced you to read, hours every week on the forums, mailing lists and wiki. Now I have so little to do with keeping Arch purring like a kitten that I have to read up again on how to do cron job.


Ubuntu will bring the masses, but if we loose the CLi experience for the more tech savvy we are doomed.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

I use primarly UBUNTU for its fire and forget installs but glad I took a 2mths off and tried Arch - taught me a lot about LINUX.

I don't have time anymore to prick around so UBUNTU it is till things settle down and I release the inner geek - still gotta do a BSD install

 

[shogun]

Why anyone would want something to be difficult is beyond me. Wouldn't it be better to understand how to make something simpler and more robust? There's nothing stopping you from digging in to find out how they got that right... but to want something to be difficult and spend "hours every week on the forums" seems to go in the opposite direction of why we have computers in the first place.

 

[Boomstomp]

I still think its better to recommend Ubuntu or Mint to new users (being a relative new user myself).

Thing is, Ubuntu and Mint will install and run easily, no arguing there. But then about a month later (or sooner) you want to change something. Those who like tinkering (either a bit or en masse), automatically start looking at wiki's and stuff to learn, and you start delving deeper into Ubuntu/Mint. Its a natural progression to learn about other distro's and what the strong points of each is. As you tinker you will start experimenting with other distro's etc untill your appetite is appeased.

My point is its not wrong to recomment Mint/Ubuntu to everyone to start with. Those who like to tinker will automatically delve deeper into the Linux world and explore other distro's. Those who are content with Mint/Ubuntu will stay with them. At the end of the day luring more people to Linux even if it is only Mint/Ubuntu will result in more people using other distro's as well.

 

[kingrob]

I do not think so. Gentoo maybe because of unstable infighting and in-house politics, but there is still a huge space to be filled with such distributions.

Had to lure you to the discussion & my bait worked.

Linus also agrees that there should be no CLi, but I do not agree, was it not for the geeky CLi users Linux would have never become as stable as it did. If we loose the CLi experience then Linux is doomed as the next WindowsME/Vista.

I fully agree with Linus, the CLi is the only thing that makes Linux feels disjointed as an OS.

Ubuntu will bring the masses, but if we loose the CLi experience for the more tech savvy we are doomed.

No, we are not doomed. My wereld.

Who doesn't use Webmin to administrate headless servers? And why do we all use Webmin? Cos the GUI is just SO much faster than the command line. Click click...and it's done .

And I challenge you to do anything on a server faster than I can do it in Webmin....and as an extra, ask anyone who uses Mac OS or Windows 7 if they would rather go back to a MS-DOS style OS and dump the GUI.

I think not.

 

[Kasyx]

Who doesn't use Webmin to administrate headless servers? And why do we all use Webmin? Cos the GUI is just SO much faster than the command line. Click click...and it's done .

And I challenge you to do anything on a server faster than I can do it in Webmin.

I do. And challenge accepted.

I will always choose CLI over GUI when it comes to administration.