Helpful Information
 
 
Category: Linux Help
Favorite Flavor?

Well, this is the first post, how nice.

What I'd like to do is pose a general question: What is your favorite flavor of Linux?

Slackware. Not for the inexperienced, but allows great control over what is and isn't installed.

red hat

Red Hat.

i like LOTS of DOCUMENTATION.

jd

Mandrake, RedHat compatible and most comfortable coming from Windows.
If free is not the key then MacOs X could be interesting.

SuSe 7.2 is my favorite, it is the perfect harmony of ease of use, power, and documentation. Those Germans are going to take over the world again with this one.:D

I suppose I should answer my own question.

Red Hat. Its an all arround good mix.

As for OS X, it looks too Mac for a Penquin lover, and too Unix for a Mac lover.

I use SuSE, too. Nice config tools. Even though you like hacking, sometimes you just don't want to be bothered with HW stuff.

Is polling not available yet on Devshed?

Polling is available, but the thread starter (IceMan) chose not to make this thread a poll.

:)

Oops.

Next time I'll keep that in mind.

Slackware... because it is so much more stable, intuitive and powerful. The setup menus are clear and allow you to install exactly what you want, so you don't end up with twelve text editors and five different shells installed. Once into the OS, everything is laid out logically and is easy to customise. And it's just so much more stable than other distros. Once you've figured out the basics of GNU/Linux, this is the one to go for :-)

Slackware gets my vote too. It's the most stable and unix-like of the Linuxes. It is actually a lot like FreeBSD (No surprise there, since Slackware and FreeBSD were both aligned with Walnut Creek for years).

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm slackware!

Hmm. I tried FreeBSD awhile back and didn't care for it. Thats just me though.

It's kernel is a little more "amateur" than the Linux kernel, but it's a lot tighter than Linux. I'd really only use a *BSD variant for a server. You just can't have as much fun with it because it's not as supported :(

Explain "amateur". Do you mean by it that FreeBSD is the least polluted by commercial concerns, or that the code itself is less mature and professional? (I would say maybe the first, but definitely not the second)

I agree that FreeBSD is better for a server, and Linux is a better desktop, though.

Of course we're going OT here, but I think FreeBSD easily stands up to Linux on technical merit. And I see no problem with them happily coexisting, either. It's pretty obvious that each party benefits from the work of the other.

The only problem I ever had with FreeBSD was when I wrote a PHP deamon. The script would launch at 2MB of memory but as connections were made would consume more and more memory until it got up to about 6M. I believe the socket buffers weren't being freed. Switching it to Slackware it launched at 1.7MB and stayed there.

Not really relevent, just an interesting tidbit ;)

slak

By amateur I just mean it's not had the same level of scrutiny, and some distributions don't have some of the more advanced features that the Linux kernel sports. But saying that, a server doesn't need a lot of them so it's no problem :)

I'm just curious about that statement, because everything I have seen with FreeBSD tells me the opposite, except maybe in the area of SMP (FreeBSD 5.0 will probably change that, though.).

What specific areas of FreeBSD's kernel seem less advanced?

As far as scrutiny, I gotta flat out disagree with ya there; FreeBSD comes straight from the original Berkely Unix, a codebase that has been refined and scrutinized for over 30 years.










privacy (GDPR)