Favorite Linux Distros

[Garth]

After having puttered around for a while with linux i figured it would be a good idea to see what distros people are using, and what favourites are out there.

So far i've been playing around mainly with Ubuntu Server edition, Destktop Edition and the Ubuntu Netbook Remix (all of which i use pretty regularly), as well as a bit of Fedora and DSL in there too.  More recently been investigating the Linux Mint after seeing it mentioned here somewhere too.

I suppose i should also investigate the bigger names in linux and try those on for size, but until then, let's see what other people are using!

[Tweak]

I've used Ubuntu a few times.

Mostly made use of Fedora and SUSE as they are what we used in Uni and Fedora runs my home server.

I use CentOS all the time as it powers this server, CLI > GUI. Although not for the faint hearted, I wouldn't recommend running a remote machine which is providing a service through only command line without some real experience.

[White Wolf Guardian]

Only Ubuntu here, though Linux is not really my thing.

[flames]

I tend to use Mint myself although I tend to edit things so much that I might as well just start from Ubuntu Minimal and just add stuff on top, it would probably result in a much more streamlined system.
Anywho, used several versions of Mint, Ubuntu and OpenSuse in the past, the first distro I properly installed was probably OpenSuse...11.0 I think. I've tried out DSL, Fedora, tinycore, XPud, DSl-N, countless versions of Puppy Linux, Debian, Chakra (based on Arch) and countless other, smaller distros too. I've tried many but as it currently stands the major distros tend to support my hardware better although even they sometimes get some breakages when it comes to Xorg drivers <_<;

I'm not too fond of where Ubuntu is going and always preferred Mint (even though it is basically Ubuntu plus/minus some stuff and with a different attitude) but I'll probably stop using some of the more well-know and user-friendly distros soon. My setup tends to go too far away from the norm and I tend to undo a lot of the "helpful" choices the user-friendly distros chose so, *shrugs*. I might end up building a system based on Debian Testing (unlikely) or eventually get around to sorting out Arch Linux, which will probably be more benefitial in terms of performance and own learning. Until then though, I'll stick with my Mint setup.

I use CentOS all the time as it powers this server, CLI > GUI. Although not for the faint hearted, I wouldn't recommend running a remote machine which is providing a service through only command line without some real experience.

I've heard a lot about CentOS but haven't used it myself. I have to agree that for a server, CLI > GUI any day and the command line in general can sometimes be far more efficient and powerful than the GUI, even on Desktops and Laptops. I certainly use it a lot and by my own choice and have tried to do some sessions entirely in a virtual tty, which was...interesting.

[Garth]

hmmmm, seems to be a lot there flames.   I think it was you whom i found Mint from and so far it seems to be pretty good although i can't say i'm too keen on their approach to a "start button" type thing, although that was only running from a live cd so still chance to change it. probably anyway.

Which ones would recommend though?

[flames]

I think it was you whom i found Mint from and so far it seems to be pretty good although i can't say i'm too keen on their approach to a "start button" type thing...

It might have been me, but I doubt it. It is a pretty nice distro and some of their alternate desktop versions are pretty well-made. The mintmenu is completely optional and you can replace it with either of the two normal Gnome menus but yeah, I don't use it (then again, I don't use Gnome these days or have a "normal" layout myself).

Which ones would recommend though?

Depends on what you're lookin' for. There are more than 100,000 distros out there (some active, many not) and a lot of them aim for the same goals. If you want a user-friendly system with sane defaults then you've got plenty of choice and it all boils down to a combination of hardware support, what you consider "sane defaults", the availability of software, how up-to-date the software is and what desktop environment they focus on. If you're looking for something user-friendly but really light-weight, check of the LXDE edition of Mint and if you want a fairly decent KDE4 experience OpenSuse does it better than Kubuntu.
Want to dive into the deep end? Screw free time and user-friendliness, hop on the over-customised insane ride that is Gentoo. Want something like Gentoo that's fast but not as big of a pain in the rear to wrestle with? Try Arch. Want a minimal system of tiny size that's good with old hardware? Maybe some of the older versions of Puppy Linux (or some of the many spin-offs) is for you.
If you want a server, I'd have to agree with Tweak as from what I've heard, CentOS is a good choice. Want a no-nonsense, fast-boot to the internet system with firefox and a few other apps that aims to give Google's Chrome OS a run for it's money? Look up xPud. It's in development and it's hardware support seems like it could do with work but dang if it ain't fast, boots in a few seconds on my laptop. Speaking of which, if you're into this whole "fast boot internet, cloud computing" stuff, some people have got some builds of Chromium OS (The open-source foundation of Chrome OS) that you could test, especially if you've got a netbook lyin' around.
For a mix of bleeding edge packages, some degree of user-friendliness, the familiar GNOME desktop and the backing of a fairly big company, Fedora Core may be what the doctor ordered. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if stability, freedom and a community of volunteers warms your heart, give Debian a shot: it's the foundation Ubuntu was made on, is less user-friendly and tends to be more outdated but it's a lot lighter on resources.
For the adventurous, why not build your own customised distro? There are plenty of tools available for creating spin-offs of existing distros but if you really want to get your hands dirty, run a search for "Linux from scratch".

I could go on and probably actually do some searching rather than recall from memory but I'm sure you get the idea. The possibilities are almost endless, there's something to suit almost everything from supercomputers and mainframe to desktops, workstations and portable devices; whether you're a power user, programmer, sysadmin or just a regular user there's plenty of choice.
Which reminds me, there's a survey type thing somewhere on the web that asks you a series of questions and based on the answers gives you a list of suggested distros based on how well they meet your criteria. It might be a tiny bit outdated by now and doesn't have anywhere near a comprehensive list of distros but it might help. If I run into it again soon I'll throw you a link.

[Garth]

I'll have to have a look into some of those.  I already ran into the Linux From Scrach thing a while back, i very nearly did that as my final dissertation but it got changed at the last minute.

So far i think i'll try xPud and Chromium, see what they're like as well as a few others.

My main requirements are:

Netbook:  Lightweight OS, fast to boot and all it really has to do is internet and a bit of light media duties, music, video etc.

Old Laptop:  Something that's fine with older hardware seeing as it's an old IBM Thinkpad and pretty dated.  I can't remember the exact specs of it off the cuff but i know it's nothing to write hope about.  Other than that then good support with that one, and maybe additional security seeing as how thats my "furry laptop" as it were....  main duties for that are just internet browsing, irc, and that's about it.  Doesn't really need any media capabilities seeing as i think the speakers in it have packed up, that or the OS doesn't have support for it.

Younger Laptop:  I think it's getting on for about 5 years old now, starting to show it's age, general usage.  Main duties are pretty much heavily media based, again internet and irc.

Current Laptop:  Pretty recent so should be able to handle pretty much anything in terms of OS though something on the shiny side would be nice.

Server i think i'll keep as it is for now or at least until i get round to building a replacement for it in which case i'll cross that hurdle when i get there, or just dump FreeNAS on there and be done.

All of them need to be pretty secure, good support for hardware and so on.  I can't say i'm overly desperate for something that's customisable to the ends of the earth, but some degree of it is always nice.

[Righteousbro]

I've only used Ubuntu so far, but I plan on using more, also I was the graphics designer for a distro on SourceForge.

[flames]

@Garth
Well, I'll say to do some of you own research into distros, hardware compatibility and of course, to do some testing but based on your needs, these are my suggestions (although note that without knowing how powerful each computer is and what hardware they have, my guesses may be completely off) :
Netbook - xPud, Chromium/Chrome OS or possibly Meego. Failing that, a netbook remix of a major distro.
Old Laptop - DSL (or maybe DSL-N?), Puppy Linux (probably not the newest version) or possibly an older release of a current distro from a few years ago (although you won't get any updates. There are plenty of distros aimed at these older systems although I'm not sure what would be the best choice as many such distros are more aimed towards ancient desktops than laptops. Even so, many should support most hardware.
Younger Laptop - Possibly one of the more lightweight versions of the main distros (e.g. anything that uses LXDE or XFCE as their desktop environment). The new version of Puppy, Mint LXDE edition (maybe...?), PClinuxOS (possibly) and I'd say Debian is probably worth a good shot even if you choose to use GNOME.
Current Laptop - Pick a distro, any distro. Seriously though, if you say you do a lot of media-stuff then there are a good few distros out there that include such software with them (depending on what you mean by media...if you actually mean editing and production, maybe Ubuntu Studio would be worth a try?) and most will have the packages you need somewhere if they don't include them. I'd say Fedora, Suse, Mint and Arch are probably your best bets.

[Garth]

yeah i tried getting xPud today but i can't get through to their website, apparently they've exceeded their bandwidth limit so that makes me sad face.  Gotten myself a build too of the Chromium OS too although i can't persuade my netbook to boot into it which is frustrating, but i'll deal with that later.   For the old laptop then i may investigate puppy linux seeing as i can't say i'm too keen on DSL from what i've seen of it previously and i'm guessing that DSL-N is a netbook remix of it ?  For the younger laptop I may give debian a look, it's something i've been meaning to investigate for quite a while but never gotten round to, and it should be able to cope with most things, although Compiz will probably be out of the question for it.

In many ways i can see that this is what scares many people off linux as thers just such a variety in distros out there it's hard to know which is the optimal solution to your situation.  Chances are i'll just keep on playing around with them in virtual machines until i get one that suits properly and then take it from there, especially for the current laptop

[flames]

i can't say i'm too keen on DSL from what i've seen of it previously and i'm guessing that DSL-N is a netbook remix of it ?

Haha, not quite. DSL-N = Damn Small Linux Not!, it's the slightly larger cousin of DSL. If memory serves netbooks didn't exist when DSL-N was made and they may have still not existed when the last builds of DSL and DSL-N were released. They're both really getting on in their years now (and they weren't exactly using modern software back when they were frequently updated) but a lot of people still turn to DSL to show off what Linux can do for old systems. I mean sure, it's about as beautiful and user-friendly as a jagged rock but dang...a whole OS, a rather large collection of drivers (relatively speaking), office suite, mp3 player, web browser and more in only 50 MB!? Still boggles the mind.
Anyway, back to the other matters at hand:

I didn't have much hope for Chromium OS as it's still in development and all the builds are unofficial and they tend to be a picky as to what they choose to actually boot on but hey, it was worth a shot. Puppy is also pretty minimal but tends to be better than DSL by quite a bit although it's much larger (still very small though) and their most recent version is actually based on Ubuntu (but a lot lighter in resource usage) so it should be easier to use. Puppy's not really designed with netbooks in mind like the netbook spinoffs of some distros but it should work.
And yeah, I advise against compiz, even on your most recent machine. Yes it's fun and if you choose to do so you can actually be productive with it in additional to choking yourself on eye candy and I've certainly had fun in the past with similar resource hogs but if you're planning on gaming or watching videos I'd turn it off. Plus in general it tends to be a resource hog and be pretty wasteful. Your older computers can probably still run it and with tweaking may even be able to run it without too much slow down but it's not worth it.

And yeah, amazing how freedom of choice scares so many off although I guess I was a bit confused when I first started. Probably doesn't help that sometimes the optimum situation is not a single distro but rather the more recent kernel (and its drivers) of one distro mixed with the ease of use of another plus the repository size of something like Ubuntu or Debian mixed with a few apps that only Distro X seems to have, etc, etc. In which case...you'll have a fun time
Oh and as for playing around with them in virtual machines...it's a good idea and all, not to mention it's less of a hassle than burning a livecd or making a liveusb but remember that any experiences within the virtual machine may differ greatly from the actual versions as far as hardware is concerned. It's not really my area of expertise (but then again, the many distros and choosing the best distro for the job isn't my strong subject either) but if memory and logic serves then because the OS in the virtual machine isn't directly interacting with your hardware but rather several layers of software (including whatever OS you're currently running) then you can't use their virtual machine results to test if their drivers work or not.
*shrugs* You probably already knew that though, but hey, thought I'd mention it.

[Garth]

n.n

I'll have to try Puppy on the netbook, just to see how it fares, although my netbook is really bugging me atm.  upon installing a new OS, it knows there are 2 drives, one a 4-7gig drive, and the other the main 20ish gig main SSD, but i still can't get it to actually use the main 20ish gig drive, though that could be fixed with a large stick, metaphorically speaking.

As for compiz then i reckon it would be fun, just to see what it can do if nothing else.  I've never managed to get it to run either on a liveCD or in a VM, but we'll have to see.  The youngish laptop should be able to manage it to some degree although i'm not holding out for the full bells and whistles on it.

I'm just finding it more and more frustrating that Windows can go from a fresh build, set up and configured and all sorted for how i use it, to a total wallowing mess so fast.  I've not been installing things left right and centre, i've not been constantly removing programs either, but it just makes such a mess of itself.  Somehow or other it managed to fragment most of the HDD by doing virtually nothing.... but i guess that's just Windows for you.

Testing the OS' in VMs is all well and good but as you were saying about hardware support being separated through a software layer, it does get more than a bit annoying at times, like i've had distros running that won't let me change the "screen" resolution of the VM, but then have system pop-ups come along which don't scale, so you end up trying to manhandle the boxes just to hit the OK button.  >.<

Also on a side note about people being scared off by freedom of choice, i seem to recall research being done relating to that.  I think it was done with shampoos and instead of being all named differently and with different tweaks and differences, they changed it back to "Classic" and something like "sensitive" and then that was that and they boosted sales due to it.

[flames]

I don't really have any experience with Netbooks but I know that drivers will probably be more of an issue with them than laptops considering the hardware they use (e.g. SSDs). I've got no idea how experienced you are with actually using Linux beyond basics, but if the OS recognises both drives then it could be that you just haven't mounted the second one? Normally in most installers they should give you an option of which drive/partitions to use and whatnot. *shrugs*

...um yeah, I'd be surprised if you were able to run Compiz from liveCD or VM...
With the former the contents of the CD are slowly being read into RAM so for one thing you've got less RAM to work with and for the other, reading data from CD (which includes all the Compiz stuff) happens to be excruciatingly slow compared to a hard disk so...yeah, there's quite a few reasons why many livecds will run slower (although some of the smaller distros are loaded entirely into RAM during boot, which removes some speed issues).
And with the VM, considering that you're trying to run some advanced graphical stuff that needs direct access to both your CPU and GPU but you've got a whole other OS in the way...again, good luck with that. There are some virtualisation software out there which allows for graphics acceleration and some better access to your graphics card but I'd imagine games and compiz would still be pretty darn slow.

Yeah, I know the feeling. A common counter-retort to people who claim that Linux isn't ready for the Desktop is asking whether Windows is ready yet...

When it comes to testing, VMs are probably the worst, least reliable way of testing a distro (although probably the easiest for some). A liveCD/USB/DVD tends to be a much better gauge of a distro although with larger distros in particular, the slowness and whatnot tends to hurt it a lot and knock it down to being about as bad as VMs for some. The best method of testing is to simply install the thing, usually on a very small partition of its own, but this is obviously takes more time, knowledge and disk space.

[Garth]

hmmm.  I don't see any reason as to why the net book shouldn't be mounting the other drive on it's own anyway....

For testing distros then i tend to rely mainly on VMs just as it's easier and i'm lazy in regards to constantly rebooting my system into a different OS, and i'm really not keen on installing them all to the HDD just to test them

I'll have to have a rummage when i get some free time, and spare machines to run it on.  It's only really the netbook which is underused and empty enough anyway to be suitable for constant OS changes, but we'll have to see how it goes.

Keep suggestions coming though and i'll do my best to investigate them all when i get time.

[TechRoo]

On my desktop i like to use Debian, although im more of a osx fan  .
At work we/I primarily use Slackware and a home built distro that runs on a embedded system.