Toggle sidebar

The best linux operating systems ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spotanjo3
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 8,012
  • Replies Replies 92
azoreseuropa said:
Since Element OS looks good but it is not free. What a bummer.
Click to expand...
Elementary is free. You just enter 0 under the "custom" option.

https://nyc3.dl.elementary.io/download/MTUwMjIyMzM1NQ==/elementaryos-0.4.1-stable.20170517.iso

(Faster)
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1f40a018f69eaabf9b05429f6d52160af4affb91&dn=elementaryos-0.4.1-stable.20170517.iso&tr=https%3A%2F%2Fashrise.com%3A443%2Fphoenix%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80%2Fannounce&ws=http://nyc3.dl.elementary.io/download/MTUwMjIyMzQ0OA==/elementaryos-0.4.1-stable.20170517.iso
 
Last edited by Joom,
I don't know what's best, it's all pretty much the same, although some are bleeding edge and some are slow on the updates (but completely dependable if that's what you need).
I tried Manjaro (basically arch but more friendly) after thinking I had an issue with OpenSUSE (nope, faulty hardware) and was impressed with how quick and up to date it is. OTOH that version was a bit hacked together and had update issues, which is a thing with Arch, so if you don't want to be a Linux power user, avoid it.
OpenSUSE is nice and not fiddly, just a little behind on the newness.

Either way, you should use something popular so you can google problems and easily install unofficial software that isn't supported by the distro.
 
Touko White said:
What are the main advantages you'd say of using Solus over other distributions?
Click to expand...
What's kept me using has actually been the team behind it. They are extremely open to suggestions and work with the community. Almost everything I've suggested they've either used or found a more up to date/better method of using. So there's actually a real connection between the community and their dev team, something you so rarely find in most Linux distros.
Solus is made for desktop use and the repos reflect that as well. It's not filled with a million notepads, just one or two that the average desktop user would need. So they have thinner and cleaner repos with everything that just works for a desktop user. Although they are willing to add new software if they don't already have it and can't find a better version of it.
Not to mention Budgie is just really clean and stylish right out of the box. This is my desktop in action with very little tweaking on my end

 
Last edited by The Catboy,
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted User, Supster131 and Touko White
I usually go with Solus for a casual workday or a Minimal Debian distribution when I'm using Unity or Eclipse. My minimal consists of Openbox, basic drivers, and required workspace programs
 
I still haven't found the distro that I wanted. But if I had to pick one, I would pick either Debian (stable or unstable, depends on whatever you plan to do with it) and Arch (mostly because of the AUR, otherwise I hate how the devs do things).
 
InsaneNutter said:
Ubuntu Server, great for any hosting related stuff and fantastic community support.
Click to expand...
Debian is better. The problem with anything Ubuntu (Mint and Elementary included) is that Canonical fucks up the overall upstream. Say you install a common application like Filezilla, for example, from Ubuntu's repositories. This will install a heavily modified version of Filezilla that Canonical has graced with their glorious handiwork (it may not in real life, but I'm using it for my hypothetical scenario). This means that if the Filezilla team releases a patch for it that's incredibly important, you as the user have to wait for Canonical to push it to Ubuntu's upstream. If you install the updates yourself it may no longer work at all because it doesn't call on specific Ubuntu libraries and protocols anymore. If this were a crucial program like GCC or dbus, you run the risk of totally breaking Ubuntu by manually installing these updates because they weren't tailor made for Ubuntu by Canonical. This is incredibly counterintuitive and totally defeats the general philosophy behind Linux, which is breaking away from proprietary software. Ubuntu heavily restricts the user to their own versions of software, and I can't support that when it comes to Linux.
 
Last edited by Joom,
  • Like
Reactions: matpower, Deleted User and Touko White
GhostLatte said:
People that switch to find to find an "elite" distro drive me insane. There is no "elite" distribution people!
Click to expand...
Technically no, but there are distributions that do things better. Of course casual users aren't going to care about my Ubuntu rant because Ubuntu isn't meant for experienced users per se. There are power users like me that take pride in compiling their own kernel from scratch, and then there are the regulars that just want something that works out of the box. However, I also feel it necessary to educate these people to a certain degree. It is possible to install a "it just works" distribution that isn't terrible. For new users I highly recommend BunsenLabs Linux (formerly Crunchbang) which is a user friendly version of Debian that comes with a nifty Openbox environment preconfigured for the most novice of users. It still retains the Debian codebase but even your grandmother could use it and it'll run on a potato from 1998.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted User
Joom said:
Debian is better. The problem with anything Ubuntu (Mint and Elementary included) is that Canonical fucks up the overall upstream. Say you install a common application like Filezilla, for example, from Ubuntu's repositories. This will install a heavily modified version of Filezilla that Canonical has graced with their glorious handiwork (it may not in real life, but I'm using it for my hypothetical scenario). This means that if the Filezilla team releases a patch for it that's incredibly important, you as the user have to wait for Canonical to push it to Ubuntu's upstream. If you install the updates yourself it may no longer work at all because it doesn't call on specific Ubuntu libraries and protocols anymore. If this were a crucial program like GCC or dbus, you run the risk of totally breaking Ubuntu by manually installing these updates because they weren't tailor made for Ubuntu by Canonical. This is incredibly counterintuitive and totally defeats the general philosophy behind Linux, which is breaking away from proprietary software. Ubuntu heavily restricts the user to their own versions of software, and I can't support that when it comes to Linux.
Click to expand...

Are the Ubuntu LTS releases generally not using more up to date software then the Debian stable branches? I always believed the Ubuntu LTS releases pulled from the Debian Testing branch and then built their own stable releases from that. Giving you a good balance of stability and more updated software compared to the Debian stable releases, for example PHP, MySQL and Apache.

Canonical we're very quick at releasing a patch for Dirty COW, by the time i'd read about it a patch had been pushed out.

I certainly don't claim to be a Linux power user by any means. However i've generally found Ubuntu Server (LTS) to be a good tool for what I need it to do with the time I can dedicate to it.
 

Site & Scene News

Go to forum More news

Popular threads in this forum

Hacking  Update on my HKIA post.

Corsair one i164

HELP: LINUX Bedrock Dedicated Server Downgrade

getting a 3rd party wii u GCN controller adapter to work on dolphin?

Emulation  Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Adventure Squad issue