Your favourite non-Ubuntu distro? (Debian-based also welcome)

NOT Ubuntu? Do not suggest Ubuntu or Kubuntu or any of the offshoots, please.

I have it installed already and will be dumping it soon. I am anti-Ubuntu now and want nothing of it. I also think other users should dump it. I think the growing popularity and the deviations from standard Linux /Debian systems is dangerous and I don't want another 'Windows', do you?

So, if you use another distro especially if it's debian-based, please suggest. I have tried sidux and I think I might change to that one. I have some experience with it. '

I also liked Fedora but it was so different. I think it would require a higher learning curve as I'd have to get accustomed to another way of doing things. I guess I could since it's a very popular distro, has a lot of users and is based on Red Hat so that would be useful, maybe?

I also liked yumex which was not as bad as I initially feared.

Comments? Suggestions? I also would like the distro to be a good one for a laptop so I guess most would apply since it mostly matters on what hardware is in your laptop, right?

 

Avoiding a distribution because it seems to be too popular is a first for me; it doesn't make any sense. In fact, it is anti-progressive if anything; I doubt many Linux users want the community split into little tribes that can only compete with each other, let alone with MS Windows or even Mac OS. It is perhaps the variation available in the Linux community that will stop the OS from ever becoming even remotely popular; unless some of the distros really become exceptional. So is Ubuntu bad? No. But maybe it doesn't need to compete with the less popular distros; maybe it is at the point where it can compete with some bigger fish.

If one distro manages to surpass the others, then there is probably a very good reason for that success; it probably has better UI consistency, ease of use, etc. But dumping an otherwise good OS because it is "too different" and thus a "danger" to the Linux community is quite absurd; how could an exceptionally successful Linux distro be harmful to the Linux community as a whole? If anything, for the sake of progress we might want one or two distros to lead the pack. That way, Linux actually has a chance of making it mainstream, or at least of achieving an OS that is usable by the masses (if they wish to use it).

That said, alternatives to Ubuntu abound. Mandriva is my next runner-up, followed by Fedora.

 

Maybe his reasoning is similar to how Linus Torvalds feels about GNOME. [sidenote to those who read the article: I think it is no coincidence that Ubuntu uses GNOME by default]

I for a long time avoided Ubuntu as a manner of learning linux as I knew I would never actually learn anything of value if it was too easy to use. In the end I had little choice but to use Xubuntu for learning because there is so much support for it... but I can see where the OP is coming from.

 

Yes, Ubuntu IS bad.

Try this out:

http://pelletiermaxime.info/2008/12/30/Why-I-Hate-Ubuntu.html

Also, Debian users HATE it. Yes, hate. Go talk to a Debian user about it or visit the forums. They are pretty adament about it there. Although, some are willing to help a Ubuntu user there, they aren't happy about which OS the one with the issue is using.

I have other concerns but what gets me the most, is the constant changes you find. I started out using Debian-based distros that used 'su' and now there are all these changes in the Ubuntus and not only that, they have an overwhelming focus on Gnome. I think the others have a bit of less support because of that. But, Ubuntu decides to do away with a lot of utilities and functions that are automatic in other distros and for what?

I also think that it's bad when one distro gets too popular since whatever they decide to do, others blindly go with it. Especially, when it is one that deviates so much from traditional Unix/Linux. If Ubuntu didn't have the PR and marketing (i.e. financial backing), would it still be so popular? The 'changes' bother me the most, though. I am tired of running into brick walls because of it.

 

I didn't like Gnome so I used Kubuntu. But, still things bothered me. I also hate when configuration methods or options are taken away. Like with alsa. There is no 'alsaconf' in Ubuntu.

 

Is that your argument as to why Ubuntu is bad for the Linux community?

 

So you dont like ubuntu because it isnt what YOU think linux should be?

That is the beauty of this subculture of OS's. You dont have to like it... find something else. Hating ubuntu for something so trivial as that bloggers points is rediculas.

I've been working on Windows based systems for 20 years, so when i took the dive into linux i choose ubuntu. Its easy to get my feet wet and learn the ins and outs of a linux distro, with out having such a huge "culture shock" that i give up because i cant retrain myself that fast.

I also have Fedora and openSUSE (and windows... i love having 4 hard drives) on my machine, but since i'm still working on the VERY STEEP learning curve of this wonderful style of OS i find myself more often than not using ubuntu because it does allow for slower adoptation of the linux mindset.

To answer you question though... I like openSUSE (the lizard makes me laugh)

 

No. I didn't say that at all.

 

What do you guys think about the " go-at-it-alone" approach, described in the linked article.
Especially the "non-contributing upstream" and "patches that are not posted to upstream bug trackers" and "lack of kernel support".
Is this something that Ubuntu should be (more) involved in, in order to give back to the whole "community", or does Ubuntu have every right to go it's own way? Are these actually serious issues?
Just curious about peoples opinion...

(I'm a linux newbie, have only used Ubuntu and Mint, downloaded but not yet installed Arch which will be my new distro, if only I wasn't such a newbie.
Thank god for the extensive manual )

 

That's exactly what you said. Stick to one story.

I feel the same way toward Ubuntu as I do toward Fedora and openSuse. I don't use them because they don't work the way I want them to work. I don't like them, and I don't have to. That's the beauty of linux: freedom. All these various flavors, no matter how much I may like or dislike them, are quintessential to that freedom.

 

No, I didn't. I was stating I had one issue and that other people had their own and that it was a consistent problem with Ubuntu. I only speculated as to how this 'do-it-a-different-way' fit in with Linux as a whole. I didn't say I didn't like it because I thought it should be a certain way but I suggested that others didn't like the way they did things.

There is a big difference there. For me, I don't like a few things but the fact that Ubuntu *chose* to go on their own method, that took a part in making it extra difficult to solve a problem. Therefore, I was insinuating that maybe those people have a good point!

Perhaps, these Ubuntu die-hard fans need to read carefully what is posted before jumping to conclusions.

 

Why not just use plain Debian testing or unstable? I used it, I liked it. I was however frustrated with flash player installation through there repos and Nvidia driver install was pain.

 

Why not just use plain Debian testing or unstable? I used it, I liked it. I was however frustrated with flash player installation through there repos and Nvidia driver install was pain.

 

Being rude isn't going to get you anywhere. I don't think there's anything wrong with Ubuntu. If you think Ubuntu is killing linux, you're out of your mind. Linux is about geeks doing things however they feel. There are plenty of distros that entirely ignore the ubuntu trend. If you don't like Ubuntu, don't use it.

Also, move out of your mom's basement.

 

I wasn't rude. I will reiterate since you and others are ignoring what I've said. There are plenty of sources outlining what is wrong with Ubuntu. If you don't agree, that is fine. But, trying to deny that they don't exist is silly.

 

I like Mandriva and its childish/kindergarten-ish interface. It makes me feel like I'm computing back in childhood. lol

 

I am used to Debian-based distros though and if I went with RPM, I think I would just use Fedora. I have tried Fedora and I liked it except it seemed so different, the way things work. It would sometimes be frustrating when you have habits based on other methods but it was mostly re-learning things.

Hey, you have one of the best notebooks in the old Thinkpads. I think Thinkpad fans only like the T61p better.

Thinkpads are good for Linux, right? I would get one but I am a stickler for a really good LCD screen and I think Dell, Sony, even Apple are better. But, Thinkpads of the old IBM variety are some of the best out there.

 

I thought this was going to be a thread not about Ubuntu?

With that in mind, I'll admit that I do use Ubuntu, but I don't let it dominate my machines. Ubuntu makes a great beginner distro, but it lacks the functionality that more advanced users need.

Because of that, I am currently using Arch on my computers. I need a little bit of change, so I am going to try Gentoo out soon.

 

Have you even realized the amount of patches Ubuntu provides for debian? Most of what debian is doing is backporting Ubuntu stuff.

To answer the thread my favorite non-ubuntu distro would probably be a toss up between Mandriva and OpenSuSE.

 

Arch is great, and Debian is pretty nice. Honestly though I haven't had much experience actually using many distros other then ubuntu, arch and debian over an extended period of time. RPM distros never really caught on for me.

 

For those of you that like Arch, what in your opinion makes it special for you?

 

The fact that it starts with so little by default. Stripped down to the essentials.

 

Arch is great cause you build the system yourself, the package manager is great, the AUR is awesome(if you can't find something in the official repos, chances are it's here). Rolling release means you never have to reinstall or do a massive all in one update after you've installed once (you get small updates every day as things are released from testing instead of a big one every six months)

I however never recommend it to a linux newbie, you definitely should have some experience with linux before you try to install.

 

Is Arch Debian based? I couldn't find that info on their site.

 

I believe that Arch is an independent distro, neither based on Debian or RH.

 

^Yep, Arch is inspired by Crux linux.
Here is a picture of a GNU/Linux distro timeline (1993-2007); linky.

 

It was inspired by Crux, but contrary to that chart it is not based on it by any means. The only thing that is similar is how they think the distros should be, which is simple

 

I thought I read Arch was inspired by Crux, not vice versa but maybe I've misread it.

 

Woops, my mistake

 

Guys, what I am felling is Linux as Desktop still is not applicable for end-users. I have tried bunch of different distros (Fedora, Mint, Suse, etc) and I have selected ubuntu just for sake of their largest community. It is practically 99% you will have set of problems if you decide to install Linux as a desktop system on your laptop. The most important thing in this case is "how to" knowledge which can be provided by the distro community.

Personally it is my desire to work under Linux, to me linux is a kind of Lego for adult people and I like 3D desktop possibilities. But unfortunately Linux is still my secondary OS.

 

Ubuntu has the largest community by a slim margin, Fedora, OpenSuSE and Mint are all very close to it. Mint, OpenSuSE, and Mint have been exchanging places on Distrowatch for quite some time.

 

Besides, half of the "how-to's" for hardware etc, are distro independent.

 

Ubuntu is a good way to be introduced to the world of open source. Nothing like watching windows users drop to a free alternative.

 

I've been going the open source way for quite a while. Windows has a decent open source community...although, half of the programs were just written for compatibility (aka actually written by a linux user, who was thoughtful enough to make the windows port easy.)

 

my favorite distro is CentOS (RHEL) and Fedora, I liked Debian a lot too
*buntu distributions start to be a bit too much 'secured' (according to my personal opinion) against mistake-doing of regular users.
I like if i can do things like root if i want to - this is my freedom .

 

Heed.
_______

 

openSUSE works great for me.

 

for me too (Vaio SR21M, openSuSe 11.1, 64 bit version) ...

 

My Kubuntu install has yet another problem. Is this OS usable at all without constantly having problems? It's not even bleeding edge like Fedora but has problems ALL THE TIME! Often Flash based, too (video/sound problems).

I also strongly disagree with Ubuntu being good for newbies to Linux to start with. I think it's good for maybe trying later after you start with Debian or Fedora. Those are the core Linuxes along with Gentoo, perhaps. Fedora is based on Red Hat and Debian is one of the oldest. Ubuntu is a fork of it and has drastic changes.

Also, I wonder if Ubuntu/Canonical is going towards a 'Microsoft-like' path.

Ubuntu can really be annoying but what bugs me is that so many people are brainwashed to thinking it IS Linux when it is NOT.

Anyway, I would switch to Fedora but it would require learning different stuff as it has some 'changes' and different ways of doing things. I do have it on another partition. I guess I can make do with Mepis 8 which is very good. I wanted a very recent distro, though, that is almost bleeding edge because the newer wireless/wifi cards and drivers in the newer laptops often have less issues when used in a newer OS with upgraded kernel and packages.

Anyway.......

 

If you want very bleeding edge you might want to try Debian SID. The more I use Debian, the more I love it. It is the right balance of having things up and running and having to figure stuff out. Really, right now if I want a binary distro I am going to stick with Debian and if I want a source based distro(where you compile everything) I will dabble with Gentoo. Heck with Debian you can even compile from source instead of installing the binaries, if you want....

 

True. Good points all around. I agree with everything you've said. I guess with bleeding edge stuff, though, you have to worry about breakage, too. I have tried sidux and have that installed as well. Yeah, I am thinking I'll probably try using sidux more and maybe Fedora now and then.

 

I'm with Arch as well. The real beauty of the system is that it's completely neutral. Like Switzerland. You install the base packages, and the it's your choice from there. Go with KDE, side with GNOME, use -box etc, or use none at all, it's completely your choice. The best part is, you can switch allegiances freely as it won't affect the base system.

Then there's the rolling release system which means you install one instance of Arch, and that's it. All you need to do is just update the system. You could have installed your Arch way back in 2003, and still use that system, but if you keep it updated, it's the same as the 2009.02 release. No need for release cycles.

It's definitely not beginner friendly, but if you have a bit of experience, and with the help of the beginner's guide, it's very easy.

 

But, Arch is a bit on their own, right? At least with the ubuntus and fedoras and the distros that are based on them, I can troubleshoot with a bit of a branch off. I can check multiple forums to diagnose and troubleshoot any issues. I can switch to another related distro and not have to undergo a steep learning curve again. I don't know much about Arch except that it's Canadian and quite different than the others. A lot of people seem to really like it, though. I just don't know if I want to learn yet another 'system.' Other than that, I agree with you and others who insist it is good and it is good that we have these wide variety of choices and that is what makes it unique. On the contrary side, there is an advantage to having some consistencies as well including the one I just made above. What I don't want to see is that restrictions and less choice. In the long run, it's probably steps back and I would rather deal with a lot of different distros and options. Just remember that there is then less people to work on these projects than if there were less. It's just spread out more but you have the pros and cons no matter what is done.

 

MEPIS is Debian based, and not related to Kubuntu/Ubuntu other than it's debian roots. I'm starting to feel like a MEPIS shill, but I just really like it!

EDIT: I liked Fedora 10, but found it too chicken***t on non free stuff I don't give a rat's gluteus maximus on that sort of licensing crap when I support it in the Windows world. I will however glady, and do, donate to linux or anyone else, such as those third parties, that will further it's development

 

The Arch community is quite responsive IMO and have a pretty active forum. Not to mention the excellent wiki's.

Even still, for the most part in my limited experience, Linux is Linux. Sure there are differences between distro's (some bigger than others), but with a little bit of thinking and investigation, you can apply the same steps for any one distribution to another in most cases - just don't expect to copy & paste 100% of the time.

 

I'm liking openSUSE so far

 

Flash is notoriously buggy on most Linux systems, an issue only being rectified now. Also, Kubuntu is treated as a second class citizen, most of Canonical's work goes into Ubuntu.

I can only speak for myself, but when I got into Linux, I started with Debian as my software teacher had a copy. I got the initial " is this shiite?" vibe, until I downloaded Ubuntu. That was when I got into Linux. Sure, now I can install anything from Ubuntu to LFS, but when I was starting, Ubuntu was a godsend.

Charging for software and blackmailing builders into bundling? Somehow I don't think so.

So what is it if it isn't Linux?

 

Perhaps what he meant was that having Ubuntu is sufficient to be running Linux; however, most people believe Ubuntu is necessary to be running Linux.

Most people equate Ubuntu = Linux, and do not understand there is more than one distribution.

 

I guess my favorites have become Mandriva, OpenSuSE, and Ubuntu

 

I use *don-don* Ubuntu. Sorta. I was being lazy and didnt want to have to deal with getting the friggin wifi drivers on debian, so I threw in an Ubuntu CD instead. And then removed pretty much everything from the install and started building it from source tarballs. Heck, I even have switchable graphics semi working! AND, more importantly, my custom install of Amarok. Gnome is being compiled as we speak straight from their own website. So its Ubuntu, but not Ubuntu.