Which Linux distro do you like the best?

[Canada EH]

I am liking Mint a lot.

KUbuntu is ok too.

I will try others, like LUbuntu, XUbuntu, and any other of the top 8 linux distro's.

[Guest]

Ubunntu

Elementary OS

Cent OS

 

 

[Electronics Wizardy]

CentOS

 

It just works and is supported well for servers.

[Shura]

I like Arch Linux with Cinnamon

[givingtnt]

8 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

I am liking Mint a lot.

KUbuntu is ok too.

I will try others, like LUbuntu, XUbuntu, and any other of the top 8 linux distro's.

Ubuntu and Kali are the only one I know

[stationvsbox]

I've only used Ubuntu cuz I couldn't figure out Win nvm long story

[Carlos1010]

Kali I just downloaded it yesterday lol. I think I'm downloading Ubuntu too

[ARikozuM]

Mint, b/c food...

[SCHISCHKA]

42 minutes ago, Carlos1010 said:

Kali I just downloaded it yesterday lol. I think I'm downloading Ubuntu too

the problem with kali is the repos are always down. not very good as an operating system when you can't get security updates. I use it in live cd to try out one of the tools. If I like the tool I compile from source or use Debian repo

 

Debian is the best for software and stability. Ubuntu is the best for modern hardware as it uses a newer kernel than Debian. I never used the redhat based ones because debian works for me and AFAIK has not received funding from government.

 

If you're looking for OS the practical choice is debian or redhat based, which comes to a choice between app armour and NSA funded SElinux. After that the main differences are kernel version and support life cycle. All the various desktops and software packages you will find in the many many distributions you can replicate with a base debian installation, and you're not getting the delayed filter down of security patches.

 

 

[Canada EH]

I try to search for "Best Linux" and get a top 5 list and they seem to be way off.

Fedora I hear is old school so I stay away from that jazz.

[tatte]

Debian has been running my server for the past ten or so years, no complains.

[SCHISCHKA]

16 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

Fedora I hear is old school so I stay away from that jazz.

fedora runs the latest kernel and is basically redhat testing. 6 month release cycle and no long term support. pay for redhat for long term support or get Ubuntu LTS free

[steezemageeze]

Top 5, no specific order.

• KDE Neon (up to date, looks great, cool concept)
• Xubuntu (Stable as can be, extremely customizeable [note: that's because of xFCE, which can be installed on any distro)
• Fedora (rock solid stable, extremely up to date)
• Arch/Arch-based (you've all heard the reasons to use Arch repeated over and over, I won't go into it)
• OpenSUSE Tumbleweed (same as Fedora)

Edited November 2, 2016 by steezemageeze
reasons why they are my top 5

[/dev/God/Haruhi]

Whichever fits best the bill on whatever I need it to do. On my desktop I do use Arch linux with KDE Plasma so I can tinker around and learn from time to time. Waiting on LXQT to improve a bit, and to get a bit of a nasty bug with wallpapers on multi-monitor support. LXDE as a DE is a close favorite of mine (but hard to use on Arch decently themed due to GTK 3 themes). On my laptop LXLE, since KDE has problems with old NVIDIA hardware. If I had to make a list, it would be something like this, no particular order.

 

 - KDE Neon: @steezemageeze pretty much said it, with the plus being that, since it is based on Ubuntu it does have a good base, both in software and in search results when you encounter a problem. Plasma offers a full featured desktop experience, and since it is integrated by KDE itself everything is really cohesive. Depends on who you ask, but I'd say it excels for people moving away from Windows.

 

- LXLE: Been using it in this 2007 laptop for a week or so, and it earns it's place on the list by being lightweight enough to resurrect quite old hardware while maintaining good looks and functionality. It does look quite a bit like good old GNOME 2. I believe that some software choices are not the best ones (Seamonkey as browser for example) but still really good.

 

- Arch linux: Not for everyone, mind you, but the reason it makes into the list is due to the learning process involved on setting it up, and then maintaining it. A steep learning curve that gets smoothed out by it's wiki and forums, that, once passed, allows you to get far more in control of your system. That "YES!" moment when you figure things out is great. Oh and that package manager.

 

But it is really a matter of trying and settling in what you truly enjoy. I didn't enjoyed the *buntu or the mint experience, and I jumped around them trying them, until I bit the bullet on Arch and found it was for me. That is the beauty, there is no "best" there is just "different", or, more accurately, "whichever fits your bill". For example there is no "Debian" "CentOS" or "Fedora" on that list, because for my use cases right now they are not the "best", but they can be certainly be the best for other use cases (for example a machine that needs utmost stability, or a distro that does not include proprietary software by default) But they are excellent bases for it's own uses, as they are my three choices.

 

And that is why I am pondering trying seriously something like trying i3WM even if my brain melts for a bit (tiling window manager, search a bit on Google, it is a completely different way of managing a desktop). The best you can do, even if it sounds ridiculous, is to go wild trying! Don't like something? Scratch it, Like something? See how you can change it into something you love. Make it bend to your will, which config options or alternative does it have, usually it doesn't take long to figure it out if you have a half decent google fu. Try some "cake bases", get a base that you like and then "decorate with some toppings" it is really the best path.

 

 

 

[Dat Guy]

If I ever have to use Linux again: Slackware. The only one that doesn't get in my way.

[Kozworth]

My two go to distros are Ubuntu w/ GNOME (Because I can't stand Unity), and CentOS.  I have used Mint before, it was okay.  I still need to give Arch a shot, I hear good things about it.

[SCHISCHKA]

5 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

Ubuntu doesn’t necessarily use a newer kernel than Debian

Yes Ubuntu is based off debian unstable. I was referring to the stable versions. I wouldn't use anything outside Ubuntu LTS or Debian stable based on past experience. Other than security updates I need to be careful about upgrading, Im self employed & work everyday so I need to manage my time so that Im not screwed if an upgrade breaks anything.

5 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

Personally, I use Arch Linux almost exclusively, and in my experience, Debian turns out less stable for end users than Arch does. The reason for this is, Debian has release cycles that cause dependency issues when you need software that requires an unavailable dependency… enjoy compiling in all of those things for yourself and I hope nothing breaks on you because of it.

 

I used Arch as an undergraduate student; I find Arch breaks with proprietary drivers when kernel & X-server are updated. When I started working I found I didn't have time to manage it and Debian stable worked really well until I upgraded my hardware and found debian's kernel to be too old. As you said unavailable dependency; is the reason I went for Ubuntu 16.04 over continuing to use Dedian with back ports.

5 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

What’s wrong with something being funded by the government if it’s FOSS, anyway?

I can't tell you right now, i left my tin foil hat at home...

Lets look at TOR and onion routing because its in the news atm and its FOSS; USA government was involved in its development; they had a head start in funnelling criminals towards it, identifying dark web traffic, and tracking users. worldwide police just did a massive bust of people who bought drugs online, it was called "Operation Hyperion". Not that I condone drug use or dark web activity, I just dont want government getting involved in my operating system and playing their games. I guess the police did their crack down this year because more people are aware that TOR has been compromised.

Who knows what the USA government knows about exploiting SELinux?

[/dev/God/Haruhi]

38 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

...

I used Arch as an undergraduate student; I find Arch breaks with proprietary drivers when kernel & X-server are updated. When I started working I found I didn't have time to manage it and Debian stable worked really well until I upgraded my hardware and found debian's kernel to be too old. As you said unavailable dependency; is the reason I went for Ubuntu 16.04 over continuing to use Dedian with back ports.

...

I don't know when that was, but funnily enough it behaves the exact opposite. Arch not even once broke with proprietary drivers when it updated and I can't even install the non-free drivers on any *buntu. In fact I am more with @Nicholatian that Arch breaks far less. In my particular case whenever Arch breaks, it is usually my fault, because I decide to learn by doing (and you can guess how that ends)

 

[SCHISCHKA]

27 minutes ago, /dev/God/Haruhi said:

Arch not even once broke with proprietary drivers

Its not a question of if, its when. Because of the proprietary nature of driver development, if the drivers are not in the kernel the bugs don't get reported until the software gets to the end user. Arch is a great way to learn linux but I would not use it on a production system. For a bit of perspective I used Arch from 2008-2011 on my desktop and I used it on laptops from 2008-2013. I only stopped using it on my netbook when I broke it. It was the best OS for my netbook, my netbook did not need proprietary software.

[/dev/God/Haruhi]

5 hours ago, SCHISCHKA said:

Its not a question of if, its when. Because of the proprietary nature of driver development, if the drivers are not in the kernel the bugs don't get reported until the software gets to the end user. Arch is a great way to learn linux but I would not use it on a production system. For a bit of perspective I used Arch from 2008-2011 on my desktop and I used it on laptops from 2008-2013. I only stopped using it on my netbook when I broke it. It was the best OS for my netbook, my netbook did not need proprietary software.

Point taken. To be fair, that can happen even while being careful, so unless it is a critical application (like a production system) the actual risk of it is more than low enough to be comfortable running something like Arch. And if one day breaks, since I've learned I do have the knowledge to fix the problem. And that is just priceless

[Canada EH]

I like Ubuntu because I broke my Linux cherry with them, using Xubuntu.

What is the proper spelling, XUbuntu, or Xubutnu?

[Sheldon_King]

I personally run Fedora when the hardware allows it. Some things just need to work. 

 

Became linux user on Crunchbang years ago, as I wanted something lighter than windows 2K and did not mind coding things to work. Heck, outside of some games, and Intel GPU drivers, I would still be using it as my main OS (not chrunchbang/BunsenLabs itself, but probably Debian or Mint with some lightweight Windows manager). 

[Space Reptile]

i love Pmagic , and ubuntu is nice too

[flowalex]

I really like  Ubuntu gnome and the short period I used it Fedora with Gnome, I tried Elementary OS, but I didn't like that the lack of configuration options available on it

[HarryNyquist]

I've used Ubuntu for a long time, but I just switched my server off to FreeBSD. It's...been an adjustment to be sure.

 

(and YES I know FreeBSD is technically not Linux but still)