Which do you recommend?

G'day,
Just had a look on my ISP's website, and found there mirror, with a few different Linux distro's, I'm like shweeet. So they have:

• FreeBSD 7.2 & 8.0
• ArchLinux(Already Got)
• Centos 5.4
• Fedora 12
• OpenSUSE 11
• Slackware 12.2

Some of these are big downloads, but that doesn't matter because while downloading them I get them super fast, and it doesn't effect my bandwith or my monthly usage! How cool, but anyway, which one/s would you recommend I try? All of them?

Cheers

 

As I see it, Linux = kernel + shell, rest is personal preference (gui, startup skripts -init, package management, administration tools and skripts) so hard to say.
If you need some particular info, Zoid here on forums is known distro hopper, he tried some weird distros, i never even heard of, hehe :-D.
So, I'd say, try it all and don't forget to post summary of your experience, it could even help some ppl that face similar decision ).

 

Thanks for your reply, let's hope theZoid comes around and gives me a hand making the choice. Currently I'm thinking I'll just try them all! + Write up about my experience

 

If it costs nothing, go for it.

Fedora and openSUSE are almost as easy to install as Ubuntu. I've never used any of the other three distros, but I understand that they're a bit fiddlier to set up. I say three 'cos BSD isn't linux; it's a unix variant, though linux programs usually run on it.

I rather like SUSE as a serious day in, day out distro.

If you're looking for variety, I'd suggest trying different desktops; Gnome, KDE, xfce etc. Also comparing and easy to install distro with something that requires a bit of command line work.

In the spirit of Jessie's diets: This week I shall mostly be using Debian.

 

Arch or CentOS or FreeBSD 8.0 in the order of my personal preference.

 

i have tried fedora 12 and opensuse 11..i did like em both..but found myself taking more of a liking to fedora 12..
heard of the other ones..but never tried em..
but yea..that would be great if you tried them all..
look forward to seeing that writeup

 

Well, seeing as you are a new user, FreeBSD, Arch, and Slackware are big no nos. CentOS isn't that hard, but it's VERY ancient, it's mainly meant for servers. Fedora 12 is the most up to date(besides Arch) and one of the easiest to use on that list, but it can be a bit unstable, but it should be alright. OpenSuSE should be up to date and fairly stable, and it's easy. Choice is yours.

 

yep Thomas.....for a true Windows 'replacement' (our ultimate goal) I'd go with openSUSE 11.2 or Fedora 12....both are real easy to set up for multimedia, and rock solid and fast. A purest would go for Arch or Slackware, but those distro's have a different philosophy behind them and don't have windows in the crosshairs, so to speak, like the former two

I like CentOS for it's stability, but there's one issue that keeps me from using it darnit...even though the kernel is ancient, it's been updated for later drivers etc so don't let the version phool you

FreeBSD will serve the purpose of making you appreciate Linux in general, and it's broad acceptance and compatibility . For servers IMO.

That's my opinion on all of it....I'm using openSUSE 11.2 KDE 4.4.1 daily for a work and play OS btw right now.

 

I suggest dual boot with Ubuntu and Fedora. Lots of support and when there's an issue, it often applies to or is made towards Ubuntu. I'm not even a super duper Ubuntu fan but let's face it, a lot of writeups are specific to Ubuntu but would probably work on other Debian distros.

I don't particularly like OpenSUSE for the inferior packing system (I like Synaptic) and the Novell deal with Mikeysoft but that could change depending on the Novel situation.

 

Yeah, but really CentOS is still light years behind modern distros, I've used it several times as my main OS.

A dual boot with Fedora and Ubuntu is just really useless and takes up unneeded space. And the package management isn't inferior in OpenSuSE, it's actually far better than APT-GET(which is quite old really), it may seem inferior to you because you don't use it, and don't know it, and are used to synaptic but in reality it isn't.

And the Novell deal with Microsoft has nothing to do with a free, community developed distro that happens to be backed by Novell. And the deal with Microsoft is far from a bad thing.

 

You have no clue on what you're talking about.

Ubuntu and Fedora are #1/#2 last time I checked, btw. Ubuntu is most popular and Fedora being based on Red Hat and with lots of contribution, 'can't go wrong there. You think it's a waste of time using them? I'll keep wasting time, then.

 

Oh really, I don't know what I'm talking about? Just FYI, Fedora IS NOT based on Red Hat. Get your facts straight, it's the other way around .

I didn't say using them was a waste of time, I said that dualbooting with them is a waste of time, since, essentially, they are pretty much the same unless you start really hacking them. They use much of the same applications with the same interface.

 

Unfortunately, ubuntu isn't in OP's list.

 

that's because he's looking to try other distros (which are on that list)..he's already got ubuntu installed.

i don't see the point in dual booting 2 linux distros either..but if someone wants to do it..whatever..no bother to me

 

LOL I didn't even notice that after he mentioned.....But yeah that would be another reason not to dualboot But still dualbooting is pointless, he should replace his Ubuntu install with something else...

 

Why does it have to be out of that list?

Anyway, I say out of the list, either Fedora 12 or OpenSUSE since that seems t be the favorite choice. 'Might as well try it out so the OP can give his perspective of it.

What is wrong with dual-booting distros? I have a choice of 6... lol!

Although, I can see the reason to settle on one. When SSD and Linux matures enough, I will probably commit to one.

I like Debian Testing and Ubuntu. Maybe I should try OpenSUSE in Virtualbox one day.

 

Because OP's internet isn't unlimited.

 

LOL...Weren't you arguing AGAINST OpenSuSE in another thread, and now you say you should try it some day? You haven't even tried it? Whoa oh nice job my friend .

Well, dualbooting distros is sort of redundant, they are pretty much all very similar to each other.

 

Ok, Ok, Ok, Jeeze, settle down, we don't want a big nasty mod to close the thread! Yes, I already have Ubuntu installed along with Win7, I am interested in testing these out on another system I have, I am fine with Ubuntu, it's great, I wont go messing around with my laptop adding extra distro's, 7 already eats my hdd space like it's breakfast... I don't need anymore! I'm actually interested in buying a D600 or the like for Linux etc testing... Hmmm. Anyway, thanks for all your input, I shall try them all!

 

I tried the Live CD. I compared it to other distro Live CDs. That's all. I thought I was smoothing things over. I changed my mind a bit, figuring it's Linux. There's no *bad* distro.

I guess they are similar. It's all relative, maybe, though.

 

You're right. I extend my good will towards Thomas, fellow Linux user.

Dells and Thinkpads are good laptops for Linux users so have fun trying out whatever you decide.

 

meh..just a little flame wars going on or so to speak..LOLz
yes..try em all! its quite fun to see how a distro differs from one..even if there isn't much of a difference at all. just checkin the stability of it..see which one works best for you and all that good stuffz
then u can join the distro hopper club LOL!

 

Arch is one of my favorites. I've not used any RPM distros for ages. Back when I used them, there was dependency hell which prompted moving to dependency-resolving packages and managers such as the .deb/apt system and Arch's source/pacman. However, I hear this isn't such a big issue any longer. Fedora is said to be the most cutting-edge of the RPM distros, and I get mixed opinions of OpenSuSE. For sheer usefulness, I highly suggest a debian or Ubuntu derivative, like Mint. Slackware is very, very do-it-yourself and "pure", but I feel that if you want to work with a source based distro, Arch is a better choice especially if you're new thanks to its package management and documentation.

On the topic of dual booting Linux distros, I've seen the wisdom in it if you use a bleeding edge distro as your main. When your tweaked system breaks somehow, or something else goes to hell, its nice to have a linux system ready to go for actually getting stuff done and fixing your main distro a little easier.

Now that I've installed Windows 7 Ult x64 on one HDD of my main rig, I'm going to format another to be 3/4 Arch x64, and 1/4 Mint x64. While I expect it would get icky for them to share the same home partitions, they can at least have the same swap designated if I recall correctly.