My nickel-tour history about using Linux distros.

[vim_commando]

I have been a long-time Linux fan, and over the last couple years, become a die-hard user. It has taken me a while to settle into something I like, and just want to share some of my experiences. Be warned, this is a long post

I have used RedHat, Mandriva, Slackware, Vector Linux, Knoppix, DSL, Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo. I have also given test runs to the likes of Puppy, SuSE, Elive, Xandros, and some others.

My first adventures into Linux go back to around 1998 and RedHat 6.2. It wasn't a bad experience, and I loved being able to install the system, setup sound, 3D graphics, dial-up networking, install Quake 3 Arena, get online, and start fragging without a single restart. It had me hooked on the idea of Linux, although I took a break for a while.

The second time I dove into Linux started with Mandriva, a RedHat-based distro, and things were OK. I didn't like Mandriva's RPM-based package management, nor did I care for the preset features in Mandriva, and it inspired me to look elsewhere.

I used Slackware for a while, liked how clean and efficient things were, but was not thrilled with the initial configurations. It took some work just to get a regular system going. So I gave Vector Linux a try, and found it to be a nice improvement. It was surprisingly enough faster than Slackware, and has a nice utility to manage configurations. After a couple months I got tired of not knowing exactly what these configuration utilities were doing, so I jumped head-first into the fire, and next installed Gentoo.

I loved Gentoo. It is a very fast and very customizable distribution. I had it running on my Inspiron 8100 and my Desktop system for quite some time. The package management system, portage, is one of the best. The community is good, and there is a ton of documentation. Unfortunately, it takes way too much effort to setup, and almost requires you to stay up to date. New versions enter the repository very frequently, and updating requires recompiling the program. Because of that, I moved on to something that was easier to setup and maintain.

I liked the concepts of the low-overhead and low-bloat distros like Puppy and DSL, had fun with the LiveCD versions, but just couldn't bring myself to make them permanent installs. I'd tried to install Debian a number of times on various systems, but for whatever reason, always failed at it.

So I wanted to give Ubuntu a shot. I'd heard about it, so I tried an install of a disc I had, which was 5.06. It didn't work for me, just like Debian had failed me before. So I kept using Gentoo for a while, until I got a newer Laptop (a Pentium-M Sager with a GeForce 6600) and didn't fancy another Gentoo install. I gave Ubuntu another shot, this time it was 6.10. It worked great.

I got Beryl running and was having a blast with the 3D effects and various desktop enhancements. A few features I really found productivity-enhancing as well as fun. I learned the differences of Ubuntu's Add/Remove vs. Synaptic vs. apt-get/aptitude and found myself liking it. After upgrading to 7.04 and then 7.10 it was starting to be a bit annoying doing it every 6 months, because it seemed like I had just got settled in each time. Then the laptop died--game over.

I put Debian 4.0 Etch onto a T20 with a busted screen, and it got me by for a while. I found just how much Ubuntu really takes from its Debian roots, and found the much slower "major release" cycle and more generous repositories a bit nicer. However, I missed the abundant availability of the Ubuntu documentation and forum help. Not to mention the more frequent "direct" support of some software.

So, when I got my ThinkPad 600X, I put the latest Ubuntu 8.04 LTS on it. I opted for Ubuntu over Debian because of just how similar they are, and Ubuntu has a slight edge in out-of-the-box hardware support and a more active community. I'm sticking with 8.04 until the next LTS release, so I don't have to deal with the "constant-upgrade" cycle.

This system is only a Pentium 3 - 450Mhz with 256MB of RAM. While that sounds miserable for an Ubuntu system, you have to realize what comes off the CD is just a "recommended" system, and can be freely adjusted to your specific needs.

The first thing is to use the "Alternate Install" CD of Ubuntu, and not the Live CD version. It requires less RAM and less resources during the Install. You can even install a command-line only system if you so choose, but I didn't.

Once I had the base Ubuntu system up and running, I simply axed gnome in place of XFCE using aptitude. Then I took out the services I didn't need running, and the system was doing fine. You can install Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Edubuntu, etc simply by using a package manager.

Since then I have migrated from XFCE to E17 (which as been my WM of choice since my first successful compile in Gentoo) and this ol' system is doing great. Just because Ubuntu may seem bloated on a fresh install, it doesn't mean you can't use it on an older system--it just takes a bit more after-install configuration.

This is a very non-standard 600X as I have a DVD-RW and Internal Wireless in it. Both work fine, and the system is very functional, honestly more so than I expected for the 450Mhz CPU.

So in summary I've picked Ubuntu LTS because....
- Very active community
- Software and hardware support
- Flexibility
- Large software repositories
- Easy package management

The main thing that gets me from time-to-time is when an old version of something has been purged from the current-release repo. I had to install Postgres 7.4 to match my development box to my server, and it was unavailable. So how do you work around that?

If you didn't know, you can add a repository from a previous Ubuntu release. In my case I had to go all the way back to 6.06 - Breezy Badger. It was the newest release that supported the version I wanted. Anoying? Yes. But at least there is a way around it.

If you actually read all of this, I hope you learned something!

vim_commando

[jdhurst]

I have created RedHat 6, 7, 8 and 9 machines, SuSE 9, and Ubuntu 5 and 6 machines. I, too, like Ubuntu best of that lot, and then surprisingly, RedHat 7.3 (because it could do everything I wanted from Linux in under 4Gb). I turfed the RH 6 and 8 machines and still have the others lying around.

However, Linux (like Macintosh and like Vista) don't support the business tools I need, so I stick with XP Pro (and very much like XP Pro the best of any PC OS I have ever used).

Good post. Thank you. ... JDH

[gongo2k1]

However, Linux (like Macintosh and like Vista) don't support the business tools I need, so I stick with XP Pro

imo, this one of those chicken/egg stories... system integrators get great deals from ms to bundle windows with their systems, so more systems are sold with windows pre-installed. software companies realize that there is a great install base of windows, and so prefer to develop for windows... not because it's better, not because it does anything that the other oses can't do, but just because there are more machines sold with windows pre-installed. the (perceived) associated pains of cross-platform development and the smaller install base of linux/mac outweigh the (perceived) possible profits from software development in these sectors, leading to most companies only developing software for windows. customers want to buy a system with an os that runs the software they need, so they need windows.... and round and round it goes.

the truth of the matter is that the development tools for linux/mac are abundant and if there's anything to be learned from the game industry it's that cross-platform development isn't as monstrous as it may seem... and it works too!

obviously i'm over-simplifying and there are plenty of other factors contributing to this as well (technological, ideological, economical, and political) but you get the idea.

hopefully pc software companies take a hint from the game industry and start developing for linux/mac too.

[vim_commando]

imo, this one of those chicken/egg stories...

hopefully pc software companies take a hint from the game industry and start developing for linux/mac too.

This is very true. It largely comes down to a basic return on investment question. If I spend X dollars creating a Linux/Mac port, what is the likelihood will I make more than X dollars in return. If the answer is less than "Probably," then don't take the risk.

As Linux and Mac both become more common, the risk is going to reduce. Plus, I am seeing more software written on platform-independent libraries, which makes porting much easier. This helps reduce the costs involved.

For me, the only thing that I haven't found a good replacement for in Linux is gaming. I still have Windows XP around for that, because it is still the best system for it.

I'll tell you what though, I am a big command-line junky.

[abester1]

Interesting thread - thanks for sharing your experience..

Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about Fedora, and given its cycle times for multiple major releases per year... is it recommended for a "power user" as a pimary workstation?

pros vs cons ?

thanks in advance....

[mgo]

I have been a long-time Linux fan, and over the last couple years, become a die-hard user. >>snip snip>>>If you actually read all of this, I hope you learned something!

vim_commando

Thanks for the interesting article about your experiences with the various Linux distros. I have messed with Linux over the past several years, and my results are close to yours. Linux is good, but not quite ready to be my full time daily operating system of choice.

I must admit that the Microsoft Office products serve me quite well, and both XP and Vista have been suitable.

But....I've always got a few blank CDs or DVDs around "just in case" the next Linux distro catches my fancy.

[gongo2k1]

Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about Fedora, and given its cycle times for multiple major releases per year... is it recommended for a "power user" as a pimary workstation?

fedora tends to be "bleeding edge" in that it adopts new technologies fairly quickly. my experience with fedora was good but frustrating in that every release was like starting from scratch -- they'll change the underlying framework so that incompatibilities arise with older frameworks (mostly notably, i've found pulseaudio to be a royal pain with my sb live 24-bit, and wine seems to be less compatible with my windows apps than previous versions were, not to mention the fiasco with xorg 1.499 and nvidia drivers on the fedora 9 release).

i'm a really big fan of rhgb, it really improves the boot experience to give it a "professional" look, but then again, if it's really a good distro, i probably shouldn't be seeing a bootsplash for a very long time anyway, right?

there's a good community behind fedora and generally speaking, i like the artwork that goes with each release (though fedora 7's "flying high" theme remains my absolute favorite... something about the nice colors and gradients... and fedora 8's "infinity" theme with the active desktop was cool).

they're pretty good about regular bug fixes and security fixes, and selinux is setup out of the box if you're into that sort of thing (i usually disable it anyway).

if you like watching dvd's and listening to mp3's or want to install sun's java or adobe's flashplayer, you'll find plenty of info on how to add that back into fedora (since the fedora team eschews proprietary/closed-source tech).

overall, i enjoyed using fedora (i've used it since fc5) and i found it to be less bloated than any of the contemporary opensuse releases (i used to be a suse junkie, starting with suse 9.1, but i left suse at 10.2 because 10.2 was horribly slow and bloated, 10.3 wasn't too much better on my machine. opensuse 11 is nice, but i think my suse days are over for the time-being).

of course, as is always the case, the linux experience varies so much from person to person depending on available hardware and skillset. ymmv, this is just what my experience has been.

[abester1]

Thanks for the feedback, i also liked and agreed with your comments about the artwork in the various fedora releases.

fedora tends to be "bleeding edge" in that it adopts new technologies fairly quickly. my experience with fedora was good but frustrating in that every release was like starting from scratch -- they'll change the underlying framework so that incompatibilities arise with older frameworks.

I would agree.. From my past experience, as a testing platform, I loaded releases on the machines as I needed them. I did not run the OS as primary workstation (full time).

I was wondering if people upgraded (full reload) to the latest releases every so often, or stuck with an existing release and perform things like yum updates on specific packages to maintain as current as one can be...

[whizkid]

I use Fedora on my T60 for work and play. I've had F7, 8 and now F9 on it. I'll probably get out my old hard drive and try F10 beta. They stop supporting Fedora after two releases, so as soon as F10 is out, F8 will no longer get any updates. You have to be at least somewhat current if you want security updates.

I don't upgrade the OS right away after launch, but wait a month or more, because sometimes it's just awful right out of the gate. I suppose I could help with the testing group...

Fedora does have a huge and knowledgeable community.

Depending on how nerdy you are, Fedora might be just the ticket, but so might CentOS. I have CentOS on a 600X that runs my printer. It doesn't need any latest and greatest anything on it. It just has to run and be reliable. CentOS, being based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, gets updates for five years.

[lightweight]

I don't understand the sentiment that this shows some failure for Linux or some endorsement for Microsoft. With respect to the original poster, this seems a classic case of someone spending more time trying various distributions instead of learning how to install from source on *nix, which is akin to reinstalling instead of learning or understanding a problem. And note, the original poster found success by using a Linux distribution specifically built for newcomers/non-geeks (Ubuntu) built on the experimental branch of one of the purest (*nix sense) Linux distributions (Debian).

I had to install Postgres 7.4 to match my development box to my server, and it was unavailable. So how do you work around that?

Build it from source. When running different versions of servers for development purposes, this is useful, as you can run many versions of any given server. While different folks (and distributions, etc) have different philosophies about where to place these builds, using /usr/local/ (some call this the BSD way) is good practice. Then you can just export /usr/local|your development environment from box to box.

[gongo2k1]

while i agree that building from source is a great way of controlling which features/plugins are compiled for your various software, understand that most people who are asking these questions don't necessarily know what they're getting into.

and while many of the people who are trying to get into linux are likely inexperienced with even installing windows, one of the best ways to learn is to do. eventually, everyone has to start somewhere, so it might as well be here, with our help.

even though everyone touts ubuntu as the ultimate user-friendly distro, i haven't found it to be significantly different from any other distro. at the end of the day, most distros are fairly similar anyway. while i don't feel like all of the attention around ubuntu is necessarily warranted, i don't see a problem with people starting out on a 'n00b' distro. after all, i started on suse 9 myself, and suse is often accused of being a bloated dumbed-down distro.

when all is said and done, some people would rather worry about building content with an application, rather than building an application to use on their platform. those of us who are computer and tech enthusiasts by hobby, we enjoy tinkering with the os about as much as (and sometimes, even more than) using the actual applications themselves. it's a lot like car enthusiasts, some people just like working on their cars.

[lightweight]

I think we agree, but to be clear, at no point have I suggested there's anything wrong with building or using a Linux for newcomers. Of course everyone starts somewhere, and Linux is Linux; however, the hour or so it takes to download and burn an ISO only to be dropped into yet another Gnome or KDE environment as one prays and hopes Distribution Y fixes whatever the problem was with Distribution X is silly.

Making Linux accessible to everyone is fantastic. Users scratching the surface of the tremendous troubleshooting tools on hand simply because Windows taught all of us to reinstall isn't.

In terms of installing from source, a developer not doing so severely limits the wonderful development platform that is *nix, though I think all Linux users should install some stuff from source if only so they realize its not as scary as some make it out to be, and to teach them that Linux is Linux instead of becoming dependent on distribution X,Y's devs, goals, etc.

[gongo2k1]

... the hour or so it takes to download and burn an ISO only to be dropped into yet another Gnome or KDE environment as one prays and hopes Distribution Y fixes whatever the problem was with Distribution X is silly.

... I think all Linux users should install some stuff from source if only so they realize its not as scary as some make it out to be, and to teach them that Linux is Linux instead of becoming dependent on distribution X,Y's devs, goals, etc.

+1

my sentiments exactly.

[Harryc]

Yeah I agree with this. It's best just to pick a distro that is functionally a good choice on paper and then just dig in for the long run. Fix what's broken and break what's working . It's the only way you'll learn how to run and use the OS correctly. The only time I'd go against this rule is if the community sucks. Personally, OpenSUSE or Mint are my 'goto' distros unless my hardware restricts it's use..e.g too slow or old.

[ajkula66]

Sometimes (well, at least in my case) you have to play a lot around with different distros to see what works where, specifically, on what hardware.

Most of you reading this post know that I buy and sell ThinkPads as a hobby, and of course to earn a few bucks. I've always had a weakness towards Linux as well as a keen interest in learning new things.

People come to me with ancient machines, not all of them ThinkPads, and ask me to make them work, just to be able to get onto Internet, for their kids or old parents or whatever. Many of these people are on fixed incomes and can't afford to get a new machine.

I love Mint on my A31p. And Mandriva on my T43p. But neither is going to fly on a 600E or any of its contemporaries. So you have to dig and find out what does work. It doesn't really matter whather I like it, as long as it works for the owner of the machines. I've had some amazing results with PCL OS 2006 on older hardware. Almost the same can be said for SuSE 9.2 retail that I've had forever which is a great distro for 600x IMO.

Have I learned a thing or two in the process? Absolutely. Am I comfortable enough with Linux to completely drop Windows? Not really, especially for the fact that I use some work-related applications that are Windows-only.

My point being, not everyone switching to Linux will become a developer. Many people will be happy just to use something "as-is" or with little tweaks of their own, and that's perfectly fine IMO. Not everyone has the time to get serious with this aspect of computing...

And to OP: a great read that I've enjoyed thoroughly. Thank you.

[vim_commando]

With respect to the original poster, this seems a classic case of someone spending more time trying various distributions instead of learning how to install from source on *nix, which is akin to reinstalling instead of learning or understanding a problem. And note, the original poster found success by using a Linux distribution specifically built for newcomers/non-geeks (Ubuntu) built on the experimental branch of one of the purest (*nix sense) Linux distributions (Debian).

I almost (read: almost) take offense to that. I never once stated I was trying a new distribution as a solution to a problem. Every new distro was tried out of curiosity to see how it was structured over another. Not just which WM was the default, or how snazzy the config tools were. The community and documentation played a big role in the directions I've ended up taking. Some are larger than others, and some have much better documentation than others.

Understanding how Linux worked was one of the things I wanted to do, and one of the reasons the likes of Mandriva and SuSE turned me away. They both seemed to rely heavily on configuration tools over teaching you how the config files really work. I did not like how abstracted things felt. Which is why I turned to Slackware early on, and later to Gentoo.

I learned the most from Gentoo by far, and installing Gentoo and setting up a running system is something I recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about how Linux works. However, because it is such a time investment, I do NOT recommend doing it on a machine you can't do without. Your first time around might make it unavailable for 3 or 4 days--seriously. That is WITH all of the wonderful user-documentation available for Gentoo.

Sometimes I feel the tendency to pass of Ubuntu as a n00b distro is unfair. Yes, it has a lot of "It Just Works" built into it, but it also has a lot of flexibility, and does not tend to want to hide config files from you, as I have felt from other distros. It has an active and knowledgeable user base, and available commercial support--giving you more resources for troubleshooting.

As for the comment about installing from source, it is something I have done, and will continue to do. The specific I bring up about Postgres 7.4 and Ubuntu bugged me because Ubuntu is Debian-based. Debian had no problem letting me install 8.2 and 7.4 side-by-side using the package manager, and Ubuntu did. Could I have installed it from source? Sure, and it is a good solution, but I wanted to work within the confines of the package system, just for simplicity.

Building from source is usually simple, but not always. Sometimes, usually when dependencies are not well documented, it can be a headache. I had been using Postgres 8.2 for development, and 7.4 for production, and the server was having an issue the dev box was not. I wanted to see if I could re-create the problem by downgrading my dev box. In the end, it wasn't the database version that mattered, It was a ruby gem. So I uninstalled Postgres 7.4 and never used it again. Had I installed from source, I would have felt like I was wasting time--because the install had no future.

Man I can be long-winded

[lightweight]

<3. I am glad you only almost took insult

Again, I think we agree, but, again, 1) my point in the paragraph you quoted was directed towards those who seemed to think your initial post reflected some flaw in Linux or some endorsement for MS Windows and 2) The problems reported in your initial post were either a) resolvable by installing from source or b) resolved by your using a distribution specifically geared towards non-geeks and folks who, say, don't know or are afraid to install from source.

In regards to elitism or dissing towards Ubuntu, I think this is just a dumb nerd thing. Something akin to the philosophy that before some guy made Gnutella so easy a monkey could do it, we were all getting files over the net super fast. They want people to work hard to get the good stuff (Linux), which is silly, but certainly expected from nerds

That said, many of the best developers, engineers, and support guys I work with and know use Ubuntu or Fedora or other easy distributions. (Incidentally, I personally count Debian as an easy distribution for a desktop user, assuming you click on "Desktop" during the install to grab Gnome.) It is in no way a reflection on their skillset or knowledge: again, Linux is Linux. Still, I am certain none of them would argue with the statement that Ubuntu, et al are targeted toward newcomers and an easy to support (helpdesk-level knowledge) desktop.

[independent]

All *nix roads lead to the command line interface.

Trying different distros is like trying different religions, it all leads to the same place; in the *nix case, it's the command line interface (please excuse the mixed metaphor). In the end you are going to have to face the fact that you will have to deal with text config files--properly. Yes, it will take upwards of 5 years of casual use, less if you are diligent and methodical, to maybe feel comfortable but that's an indication of how long it takes.

Those are the facts of the matter as far as I'm concerned. Once the command line has been dealt with then all of the various mix of distros seem like fluff (because once you can compile anything (including kernel sources) from scratch the mystery is gone). And, after all, all a distro is, is a set of sources and a "package manager".

[wswartzendruber]

I started with Red Hat Linux 9, then Madrake, then SuSE, then Gentoo, then more Gentoo, and you get the point. I've tried Ubuntu twice when my machines (T22 first then T60) crashed and I didn't have a live internet connection. But I've always gone back to Gentoo.

[vim_commando]

All *nix roads lead to the command line interface.

I agree, the CLI (command line interface) is where the action is. As I had mentioned, what I disliked about some auto-config tools was that they seemed to hamper your ability to use it. The nvidia one is a good example, as it is not distro specific. If you make manual changes to your xorg.conf and try to use it, most of the time you loose your changes. They can be recovered from the backup file, but it is very irritating.

... And, after all, all a distro is, is a set of sources and a "package manager".

I strongly agree with this. I never stuck with the likes of Mandriva or Slackware for one reason: the package manager, or rather the lack thereof. Slackware, and by heritage Vector Linux, were both very fast and stable, but there was just not much package management to speak of. Debian and its children have very strong package management, and that is why I like Ubuntu. But I still think Gentoo holds the crown here. In my eyes, portage is still king. I sorely miss the simple config files that can easily control package versions.

I have been giving serious thought to trying out a Sabayon install, as it is 100% Gentoo compatible, but does not require the compiling. The LiveCD (not the DVD) runs great on 256MB of ram, which is a lot more than I can say for some *other* distro's live CD.

[GomJabbar]

I never stuck with the likes of Mandriva or Slackware for one reason: the package manager, or rather the lack thereof.

I do not understand what you mean above when you write about Mandriva (I do not have an opinion on Slackware).

IMO, Mandriva has a very good GUI Software Installer (and package finder) that uses their rpm mirrors. There is also URPMI for the CLI which seems powerful enough. When was the last time you tried Mandriva's package manager(s)?

http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Tools/urpmi

[arabianights]

I'd like to thank the OP for this excellent post.

I've been using Ubuntu for a while. But it runs extremely slow on my old Dell PC. I've installed IceWM as the default WM but found it's bit too simplistic to handle some tasks.

so after i read this post, I followed the advice and replaced GNOME desktop environment with XFCE. what can i say, i immediately see the difference. It's a smooth interface and no more slowdown while surfing web and viewing youtube. Since I also run XandrOS on my Thinkpad T23, I also replaced default KDE with XFCE, and now it breaths new life to my old thinkpad as well.