Rant about distro preference

M

milomak

Honorary Master
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
12,571
Reaction score
92
it amazes me how many people are distro loyal in linux. What is a distro but a combination of some packages?

This distro will come with kernel x. guess what, you can always upgrade your running distro to run that kernel if you want. oh but I want Gnome/KDE/LXFE/FXCE version y. again nothing is stopping you.

Given the fact that Linux Distros generally build themselves to be able to upgrade to the next release means that distros wars are nothing more but a case of when you want a certain piece of software (ie know the release cycles of the distros).

Even with Ubuntu, the fundamental problem I have with it is that it allows someone who knows a sudoer user password to have roughshod over the system. Otherwise, everything else about ubuntu is largely no different from any other linux distro.
 
I am not saying don't have a distro that fits all your little needs out the box. But realise that any other distro can be made to behave like the one you like.
 
That is why we should use LFS!
:D
Seriously, it gets me also that people will punt a specific distro for say a laptop and never bother to learn Linux and their own distro of choice (let say Ubuntu) to customize and optimize it for that self same laptop.

Install DSL cause it is lightweight! Why not take your current distro of choise and just start stripping away till it is also lightweight?
 
what? debian is very much a rolling release. and so is ubuntu.
Click to expand...
Well, this is the first time I have heard of them being rolling releases.

So a normal update will change your from 9.04 to 9.10 in the same manner as Arch, Gentoo, etc? No need for ISO downloads and whatnot?
 
in ubuntu, you change the reference in your /etc/apt/sources.list say from inteprid to jaunty.

in debian, in the same file you have it reference stable.

then,

apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade

viola

In fact in Debian, if you run testing or sid/unstable, you are pretty much running a rolling distro. I run sid and it is pretty much like running Gentoo with ~amd64 (in my case). if you than add the sidux or liquorix repos, you can also have the latest kernels pretty much as they come out if you do not want to compile your own.

But again it comes to to the the point that a distro release is effectively the version number of the packages that you run.

EDIT: an ubuntu release is effectively a snapshot of sid at a point in time.
 
Last edited:
given that you single out ubuntu, i should state i do not use ubuntu so my description of processes there may be incorrect. but i would think that being able to update to the next release (going via alpha/beta packages) would mean that it is a rolling release.

that being said, i run a sid debian distro. maybe we need to know what you consider rolling release to mean
 
milomak said:
given that you single out ubuntu, i should state i do not use ubuntu so my description of processes there may be incorrect. but i would think that being able to update to the next release (going via alpha/beta packages) would mean that it is a rolling release.
Click to expand...

That I would call a point release distro. Packages are only updated every six months (or more) from a snapshot of a different code branch. During that time you are not going to get new packages from the repos except for security based updates. For all intense purposes packages versions a fixed during a specific release.

With a rolling release distro packages are continuosly updated as new versions are released and there is no fixed/point release cycle and there is no need to change repos in order to get the latest stuff.

that being said, i run a sid debian distro. maybe we need to know what you consider rolling release to mean
Click to expand...

Debian Sid (& experimental) would be a rolling release as would Sidux, Gentoo, Arch, PCLinuxOS, Foresight, TinyMe, Zenwalk etc Some of those might have have discrete branches though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_release
In software development, a rolling release approach refers to a continuously developing software system, as opposed to one with versions that must be reinstalled over the previous versions. It is one of many types of software release life cycles.

A rolling release is typically implemented using small and frequent updates. However, simply having updates does not automatically mean that a piece of software is using a rolling release cycle; to qualify as a rolling release, the philosophy of developers must be to work with one code branch, as opposed to discrete versions.
Click to expand...

Doing a apt-get dist-upgrade changes release versions to a different code branch. That is not a rolling release system. By your definition all distros follow the rolling release model.
 
right. i agree then that from a technical point of view that ubuntu is not a rolling release.

given that you consider sid to be a rolling release, i see little difference in running ubuntu by constantly referencing the alpha/beta releases.
 
Distros are nice

you can choose what distro to use, and which is suited to your taste/requirements.

for example, smoothwall is a stripped-down distro, perfect for a firewall

whilst SME Server is also a stripped-down distro, but with the neccessary packages for a file/email/print server

Choosing a distro specifically suited to your need(s) will save you some hacking/tweaking later on.
 
Distro's are not just about standard packages and looks. There are some significant differences in the standard implementation of various packages. For instance, I prefer some distro's implementation of KDE to others.

All that a distro comes down to for me is what baseline I wish to work off. What it comes down to is what you pefer as a starting point. If you are unhappy with the way some things are in Ubuntu, take Debian and configure it the way you like. Unhappy with CentOS, take Slackware and keep tuning it.

Seriously, there is no need whatsoever for Distro arguments. Isn't the whole point of Linux that it can be everything to everyone depending on what they want. We have a plathora of choices from user interfaces, package managers, apss and so much more.

Pick whatever gives you the best platform and go from there to tweak what you want. If the higher spec distros arent to your liking, take a more basic one and add what you want in the way you want it.

People argue over the best editor (Vi vs Emacs) the best Interface (Gnome vs KDE vs Xfce vs Flux) and all are entitled to their opinions. I love KDE but I think there are still to many glitches for my taste so I use Gnome. Im not going to mind if you want to use KDE and I am not going to argue with you. I use what I like no matter what other people say so why should I expect you to agree with my opinion.

Arguments over "The Best" in Linux are pointless. It is about what YOU like and then finding a distro that brings you the closest to that.

I love Ubuntu. If you like OpenSUSE, good for you. Im not going to preach Ubuntu from the mountaintops telling people it is Salvation. It is damn good but if you prefer something else then enjoy.

All we can do is give tips, hints and help new guys to something that falls closest in line with what they want to do and achive in Linux. Anything above that is pointless.

Regards
Arador
 
LOL.

Debian and Ubuntu is not rolling releases. There is a reason why apt has a dist-upgrade option. Because usually some packages will never bump past certain versions in a specific release. Rolling release means you do not need to do a distro upgrade, but just normal updates. It usually is also smoother moving from a 4 year old version to a current one on rolling releases as they are made to be upgraded.

Now there are reasons why a spefic distro could be nice. Look at Mint and openSUSE's Gnome menu for example. They have non standard gnome menu's (although you can add the stock standard one) and these are sometimes very nice to use. For example I can use gnome on opensuse because the menu works for me. On Archlinux I prefer KDE or LXDE.

OpenSUSE also supports Active Directory out of the box, where as with most other distros you have to manually set it up and get half working AD support, or you can use Likewise to make it better as long as your distro is supported by Likewise.

Also each distro have their own communities of people, some more helpful than others and so on. This is probably the biggest part of why people follow a specific distro religiously.

At work I now use OpenSUSE, makes work easier in a Active Directory environment (especially since I am in the Linux department). On the Laptop Archlinux rule, on the HTPC Archlinux rule, even on my gaming pc when it is not booted into Windows.

On servers, if you want a Redhat equivalent distro, Centos is the way to go since its even binary compatible with Redhat Enterprise.

Really, each distro do have their place.
 
reddevilandy10 said:
Aaaah... has anyone tried gOS here? How is it?

Wanted to see how Enlightenment performs but don't feel like downloading the iso... lol.
Click to expand...

I tried it out back in the day - it was nice, but wasn't really my cup of tea. It might be better nowadays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X