What makes your current primary distro your distro of choice?

Curious as to why you prefer your current distro (or, if you don't, why not, and what you're considering switching to). What does it offer that alternatives do not? What distinguishes it? In a world where to the casual observer it seems like Ubuntu, Xubuntu, and Fedora really aren't that different, what are the key differences that distributions stand out?

Hopefully someone will learn of a new distro that offers them features their current one doesn't.

My distribution of late has been PCLinuxOS 2009 Minime. I was seeking something fairly lightweight (RAM-wise - good for running as a VM), and without large amount of preinstalled software I was unlikely to use, but still with an easy setup. The distro seemed to fit the bill, using less than 300 MB of memory despite having KDE (3.5), and having a very low learning curve with installation and a package manager that I was familiar with. Although I'd come to appreciate the GNOME menu setup after some time with Ubuntu, I still like the KDE setup, and find the less bloated initial install of this distro appealing. The downside is support for the distro is pretty much non-existent, as KDE 3.5 seems to be having conflicts with several of the PCLOS (KDE 4.3) updates.

 

Archlinux and ubuntu.

 

Ubuntu 9.10

I've tried many distros and find that my machines (Thinkpad R51e and T400) work well with Karmic. I'm not particularly impressed with the default look but that can be remedied. Other than that almost everything works fine (except sleep) on my R51e. The preinstalled office software works fine for what I do (I'm a student). I've also come to appreciate the CLI of Terminal. I've discovered it is just the easiest way to run commands for installation and maintenance. I truly love Crunchbang also. I'm just waiting for the 9.10 or 10.4 version of that OS to come out.

On a sidenote something I often find myself doing is moving the cursor toward the area I have my "Applications" to start Terminator.... but I'm in Windows! Don't know if anyone else has done that!

 

Arch because it comes with no preinstalled packages, makes no assumption on what packages and I want and also of course because of the Arch User Repository.

 

openSUSE is my distro of choice for three reasons.

1.) It does the best job in implementing and supporting KDE imo

2.) It's extremely simple to build custom installation media.

3.) openSUSE is the basis for SLE so it enjoys great vendor support while still providing more recent packages than an enterprise distro. (Of course, something similar can be said about Fedora and perhaps even Ubuntu.)

 

I've used various distros and always find myself making my way back to ubuntu.everything has always worked well for me and i like the choice of package installation that comes by default, and i'm a gnome person so i guess i like the way ubuntu implements gnome, don't know..but ubuntu is def. my distro of choice so far

 

slackware! choices! choices! choices!

 

Yep...ditto on the above for me....

 

Ubuntu because it does all i need and it gives me the least headaches. Although I do feel Ubuntu is very bloated.

 

Ubuntu 9.04 because it's solid and with 9.10 was ugly, I couldn't easily customize the login, my SD card reader didn't work, and Hibernate broke Ubuntu.

I'm working on getting Arch installed, but I've found Ubuntu to be pretty decent.

 

You can use chakra live cd to install arch, if you use kde.

 

Ubuntu, the only linux distro that a legally blind user can use (to my knowledge)

 

My most favorit is CentOS / RHEL 5.
why:
- stable
- rpm management, that i got used to last years and so i prefer it
- well thought out the administrative scripts .... the system-config*
- nice management of init.d scripts (means services) by admin scripts like chkconfig and 'service'
- my no.1 choice for servers
- my no.1 choice for my notebook - although i can't recommend it to everyone as laptop distro
- perfect support (either paid from RHEL) or CentOS forums, that are not so frequent, but if there is Q, there are always experienced moderators ready to A - which is amazing

 

Ubuntu because I'm really lazy. May switch things up on the netbook soon though.

 

In an Enterprise Linux distribution, designed for long term stability and reliable use, you will not find the newest version of any applications or packages. That does not, however, imply that it's automatically "ancient".

If you say something like that, i'd expect you back up your statement by some example or comparison in your case older (worse) x newer (better)?

1. topic was about why *am I* (or particularly any other forum user that care) using *my* distro of choice. Perhaps you could say, what admin tools you use on your favorite distro?
Btw. If you'd like discuss e.g. administrative tools in linux, etc, it could be nice and i bet i'd learn something new too - so, why don't you start new topic about it?
2. rpm is just way of packaging or bundling sw for easier install, yes, rpm is around for quite a few years - but so is e.g. .deb isn't it?
3. chkconfig - what's it's successor? - just asking to learn something new

Generally said everything has its use and place. E.g. I work also with IBM unix servers (AIX) and i think this OS history is perhaps older than you are, you could say it's ancient, but this is the reason it is used in productive environments. It is stable, it doesn't change admin tools or conf files often, it is conservative.
I guess, I'm conservative too...

 

I don't think there're anything truely new in linux, but I do use some alternative choices. I use Archlinux for simple server, and ubuntu/mint/chakra occasionally for desktop.

I don't really feel myself qualified to answer these questions and I am a very light Linux user, so please take them with grain of salt.

1. I think most distro share same tools. I don't use any GUI for administrative tasks, mostly nano editor for configuration files. I use shorewall to manage firewall on server with multiple interfaces and ip addresses. Other tools like monitor, munin, phpmyadmin, cherokee, screen are also my favorite. For script, I use bash, python and maybe perl if really necessary.

2. Arch uses pacman package management which is fast, simple and easy to use. It is written in C not in script, so the speed difference is very noticeable. Arch uses rolling release model, only 2 versions for each package, current and test version, less dependency headache. The real reason I like pacman is the arch build system which is so simple comparing to rpmbuild, debuild and ebuild but still more powerful than slackware's package. I can write a new package within minutes instead of hours.

3. There're so many alternatives to chkconfig/init v. Arch use a simple shell script which starts daemon in the order you listed in config file then shutdown them in the reverse order. Ubuntu use Upstart for init and daemon. Personally I also use daemontools to manage daemons, because it is very simple to use. I can daemonize a script or program within minutes, including proper logging, supervising and restarting.

I can understand most of my choices are not suitable for "enterprise" usage, so I don't have much argument on that. But I think ubuntu is almost enterprise ready.

 

Same here. No matter which one I try I always find myself coming back to good ol' ubuntu!

 

Atm Mint 8.0 is my distro of choice.
No hassle, no problems, just a fully working OTB OS.
Might venture into distro hopping land again when I can catch up a few months of sleep first...

 

Arch Linux takes the best Gentoo, Slackware and Debian. It has a large source-based package repository, including an area specifically for User package builds, the AUR. These packages are often right up to date - there's no waiting 6 months for the latest kernel to be officially supported if you need it NOW to support your new hardware. Pacman resolves dependencies and functions with all the strengths of apt and portage, more or less. It is especially of note that any desktop environment you choose will "work" equally well. These days many distros are either "Gnome-centric" or "KDE-centric", with the alternate version of the desktop not as well integrated or up to date, but Arch has all the window managers and desktop environments ready for you to choose.

The "down side" is that you start with a minimal, text based install every time. You have total control over your system, but you'll need to be comfortable using nano to edit .conf files. The Wiki is informative enough that even a newbie can walk through it. Arch is what YOU make of it, and you learn a lot about Linux

My other favored distro is Mint. If I want a Linux system that's in a user ready desktop state right away, Mint is the best choice. It takes the best of Ubuntu and adds additional ease by including a lot of proprietary codecs and whatnot included by default. The downsides are similar to that of Ubuntu, such as the way user access permissions are handled, and some non-standard configuration stuff, in addition to 6 month release schemes.

 

Figured you were an Arch user.... No matter were you go....this time going after rpm's....Pacman is a game from the 80's, right?.......

 

I use Ubuntu 9.10, Plenty of support from around here, plus it's a common distro.

 

+1.   i started with slackware version 2.something in the days when all the automated stuff was nonexistent and it took half a day to manually tweak the XF86Config file just to get a paltry GUI with about five icons on the desktop.   good times.

 

Arch user is really a lot more gentle than gentoo user.

 

Hi guys,
thanks yejun and chivalric to share the info on Arch.
And thanks Zoid for covering my rpmass :-D
I got no intention to start a flame over which distro is better, my opinion is, it boils down to pure knowledge you have about the system you use and like.
RHEL 5x started to use YUM package manager (finally) that takes care about dependecies etc. Its great tool. I'm not the right person to compare it to other package managers, since i don't use them.

There is so many things to talk about and compare and hard to choose because everyone puts the emphasis on the things he feels its important for him.
So there are desktop distributions aimed e.g. on graphic, or music, or simply on things 'to work out of box' ... if you get my meaning.
Linux is great for ppl that like choices.

Btw in the end if i think about it, for me the greatest and most used tool is the VI editor (now you can flame me, yeah i'm conservative guy) ))

 

lol...true it is...Calculate Linux is a nice 100% Gentoo compat distro...

@Slackware: now that I'm off gnome and back into KDE, I think it's time to go back to Slack....yeah.....

 

Sorry, since we are talking about which distro you use, I just have some questions for users who have use both KDE and Gnome. If you have used LXDE and/or XFCE, that would be good, too.

I guess I want to concentrate on less distro swapping and experimenting!

I'm leaning towards Ubuntu for many of the same reasons: lots of support and places to get that support.

I was wondering what you Ubuntu users think of 10.04 Lucid. I ask because I got turned off Ubuntu 9.10 because I had to mess with my xorg.conf settings to get my Thinkpad T41 w/ ATI card, to work with 3D. I gave up but 10.04 boots up via defaults which is a good start. I might want to install XFCE or Xubuntu on it, though. Any thoughts on XCFE and Gnome?

My desktop is a Quad Core, though, so I can pick anything. My main KDE apps are Amarok, Kaffeine and K3b so how many KDE libs files/packages will it install if I still want to use Gnome or XCFE?

Okay, that's it. Enough questions, right? You probably know what I'm getting at... 'want to minimize resources on the laptop and I'm wondering if KDE 4.4 is getting too bloated.... ????

 

Fedora for me. I tend to know a lot of Fedora experts and have to use it pretty often for business work. I used to like Ubuntu. I've gotten to know Fedora a lot better though...and in ways I really never wanted to (X's fault).

 

@puter1: I'm using KDE 4.4 with oSUSE 11.2 x64...it's been rock solid, and it's quick...doesn't 'feel' bloated at all...awesome really IMO.

 

Well... am an XFCE lover...And in 15 min. my dist will be Xubuntu 10.04 Alpha 3.
I like XFCE for how light it is.

 

How is Xubuntu light? It has higher memory usage than Ubuntu

 

that's LTS which is pretty good....I'm thinking about Kubuntu 10.04 because of that....idk, oSUSE is very solid and I'm starting to get weaned off of .deb's....

 

Just want to share my experience, I just switched distro from Ubuntu to OpenSUSE.
I figured Fedora is about the same as Ubuntu (not really sure could use some enlightenment)
What I liked about OpenSUSE
1)The system fonts
2)The Color scheme (really brown isn't in my list of nice colours)
3)I find the experience is more integrated design outlookwise
What I find Ubuntu is better
1)Synaptic Package Manager
2)Less redundant package (OpenSUSE updates is horribly slow)
3)More idiot proof (this isn't a problem as I am capable of viing .confs)
Ubuntu offers Video Driver direct activation.

Overall I personally feel it seems much better than Ubuntu especially in design (no offence to Ubuntu fans) however that is not to say Ubuntu isn't great, functionality both rocks.

 

Windows 7 fits these criteria the best.

 

spoken like a true hobbyist, ok?....I work from my linux machine and do so because my data is more secure than in windows. If openSUSE offers a nicer integrated DE experience than Windows 7, then so much the better.

 

It took me 3 install attempts due to an faulty CD drive error,but I tell ya....10.04 is fast,boot's quicker and overall is way better.
BTW...Have you used an modern Ubuntu Gnome setup?
Gnome,from What I have seen is way better than before And I would use it over KDE.

 

oh yeah...I've been using gnome for the last year waiting on KDE 4 to mature...I think it's there now....KDE 4 that is. I'm split between the two really.

 

It is not about that I want to use Linux for the GCC.
Having a better appearance only make it better.
However there are still bugs in xorg, weird screen flashes when the system is about to shutdown.
OpenSUSE makes me want to boot into it because previously the brown in Ubuntu and the fugly default screen fonts kind of put me off...
Application/Document/Desktop Fonts :Sans 10
Windows Title Font: Fifthleg Bold 12 (This is a very nice font)
Fixed Width Font: Monospace 10

 

I don't think so. Sorry to say so, but another post from you in this thread, that has 0 (zero) relevance.
Would it please you if he said something like:
"Lynx is best browser with 'best gui evar'?"

 

If you don't like ubuntu default font and color, you should definitely try linuxmint. It is a ubuntu system with all these ui tweak.

 

Don't want to start a GNU/Linux flamewar here.
So far OpenSUSE is working fine for me. If I were to try another distro it will probably be Fedora.
I figured since I am going to try another might as well try a different one.
YAST is pretty much as powerful as Control Panel allows advance control under a GUI.

 

I use Ubuntu because it makes a great server and a great desktop OS. Their(Cononical) paid products are more user friendly and affordable than RH or Novell equivalents.