EvolutionOS: everything works AND it looks good doing it. If you're coming from MacOS X, you'll feel right at home; there's apparently significant Apple talent contributing to it, and many of the design features are inspired by OS X.
I'm not trying to be smart or anything, but do you mean Elementary OS? http://elementaryos.org/ If not then sorry, but do you have a link to the project because it sounds similar. :)
Are you going to be using your Apple hardware? I've had little success getting most Linux distros to function well on my MacBook, although I've heard Fedora 20 works quite well [1].
Currently using Arch and loving it. My Linux distro progression has been Ubuntu -> Fedora -> Debian -> Crunchbang -> Arch.
I highly recommend starting with either Ubuntu or Crunchbang and then moving to Arch. Using Arch will force you to learn much more about Linux and will make you appreciate many of the things that you take for granted.
Unless you have some reason not to you should just run Ubuntu. It's by far the most popular desktop Linux distribution, which tends to make your life easier. I've been using Linux as my desktop for 15+ years, so I've run lots of distros, but I'm using a stock Ubuntu 13 on my machines. It works, gets out of my way, and let's me get work done.
Me, I prefer Mint with MATE because with just a few patches the screen is much more readable than any other distro and it is based on Ubuntu, so I have something to fall back on.
Distrowatch tracks hits per day, not installed user base. I love Linux Mint, but I doubt it has a larger user base than Ubuntu. However, it may eventually.
Mint has been consistently winning on Distrowatch since 2011, the year Unity was released.
This is just one poll (although a pretty large one), but Reddit does an annual poll. Ubuntu is still killing it.
tl;dr:
As of now you can have the very best fontrendering in Arch without compiling some patched stuff from the AUR or elsewhere, just by adding his binary repository in pacman.conf. It's top notch. Seriously.
Your reasoning is a bit strange. You might as well recommend using windows for the same reason (popularity). I personally run Fedora for the exact reasons you gave. Eye of the beholder, and all that.
Mint 15 Cinnamon. Still lighter weight then ubuntu, but nice eye candy. I'm tempted to switch to a tiling WM, but I haven't found one with a good built-in menu bar yet.
As a GNU/Linux user since '97, I've used many distributions over the years, but now I'm down to just two that I use in my day to day life.
1. Arch Linux on three laptops and one desktop all running encrypted btrfs root filesystems, and two Raspberry Pies each running their roots off of 1TB, unencrypted ext4 external drives.
2. NixOS on an Asus Eee PC 900HD netbook with an unencrypted XFS root filesystem. The functional language for the package manager and system configuration, as well as the interesting package pool symlinking, makes for a unique GNU/Linux experience. I use this for Common Lisp coding and server administration when I'm on the go.
All systems run StumpWM as their desktop environment, though the Pies are usually running headless as a simulated OpenVMS cluster, and dual torrent seed boxes.
I've been using Ubuntu for 3 years and just never bothered to switch away to another distro. Before I started using Ubuntu, I had a Windows Vista laptop, and I just wanted to migrate to some Linux away from Windows. Chose the most popular option.
Since I began, I've had two major issues. A failed upgrade from 11.10 to 12-something put me between a rock and a hard place. I couldn't find a way to fix the upgrade or restore to a clean state without reinstalling the OS. Eventually, I just installed 12.04 LTS because I could install it from Windows. The other major issue was my wireless not working (Realtek on a Dell Vostro from 2009). I had to install the wireless drivers from source code (Ubuntu installation tools didn't help at all) and then reboot a few times to get it working.
I use Linux primarily because I wanted a first-class *nix command line: bash, GNU core utils, etc. When this laptop dies, I'll probably switch to a Macbook Air.
I think that the choice boils down to one of these three:
Ubuntu LTS
CentOS
OpenSUSE
Some people swear by Mint or Debian but for most people, there is little to no difference from Ubuntu. Even for servers, using the Ubuntu server install to build a headless server is quick and simple. After that, install something like Docker to install any other services that you require.
I happen to run Ubuntu LTS on the desktop with the GUI reverted to Gnome Classic. There is a package to add that option. But I run CentOS on servers most recently.
I used to run OpenSUSE and only really switched because I needed to get a more balanced experience with other distros. My last OpenSUSE server was a XEN vm host and OpenSUSE made that much easier to set up than plain XEN on OpenSolaris which is what I had used before.
One note about a GUI environment. If you can, leave it off the base server and install it with Docker or KVM or Virtualbox. This may mean that you have to manage two servers in one, and use the CLI a lot, but this is a good learning experience. Modern computers are so fat and fast, that we forget how Linux was in the early days, filling a T1 line using a 486 with 128M of RAM and a 512M hard drive.
Arch, I enjoy the level of control that comes with and being able to have nearly the latest versions of everything (without distro-specific changes like many others have) (also AUR is pretty useful).
Running Arch. I started my Linux Journey with Arch, and despite the rep, it really isn't that hard to use. Sure, you have to put forth a bit of effort to set it up, but the payoff is well worth it.
Pacman (package manager) is simply amazing and easy to use. Unlike other Linuxes, you know exactly what you are getting when you run the install script.
Lightweight. Nothing gets in your way. There is nothing to uninstall and there are no hidden spywares to opt out of.
I'm sure there's many other benefits. I tried Ubuntu and hated it. It would take me far more time to get Ubuntu to a level I liked (mostly stripping out the gunk) than it did to install Arch the first time.
The documentation is simply incredible. Not only is the documentation excellent for the OS, it is excellent for all of the things I've used out of the package repository and AUR.
I'm not a hardliner, but it would be hard for me to consider using any other distro at this point.
I'm another Arch user. It's a terrific platform and very stable--something that isn't always synonymous with a rolling release. I think my affinity comes from the rapid updates to new package versions more than anything, and the fact that its relative simplicity in design and implementation is somewhat analogous to the BSDs. It's also very much like Gentoo--I think the two share many things in common, at least in spirit, even if their implementations are hardly alike.
I first used Arch about 2 years ago at the insistence of someone on Slashdot. I was reluctant to try at first due to the comparative weirdness of pacman ("weirdness" is relative) but found myself quickly hooked. I only wish I could remember the username of the kind soul who pointed me toward Arch. I'm indebted to them for being so kind as to offer suggestions to my repeated prying, and I hope that I can one day extend the same kindness toward someone else.
However, it's worth mentioning that Arch isn't necessarily for everyone. You must follow news updates periodically and keep an eye out for updates that may require manual intervention. Worse, if you're lazy and fail to update the system for a significant period of time (usually 6 months but typically 1 year or more), you might encounter circumstances where upgrading the system is difficult or can only be performed in stages with intermediate packages. The disappearance of arm.konnichi.com (sort of a roll-back machine with older packages) sadly makes incremental updates of older systems difficult, but I think the final set of transitions to the latest file system layout bringing Arch up to par with many other distributions that are currently undergoing the /usr merge effectively renders many of these problems moot. But, if you're studious and regularly update the system, you'll rarely have any issues. Suffice it to say that like what dizzystar wrote, Arch often stays out of your way, but it does need a little lovin' now and again.
My first exposure to F/OSS operating systems was through OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and although I later migrated to Gentoo, I've always had a fondness for the BSD spirit of simplicity and fantastic documentation. After Gentoo, I again migrated to Arch and haven't looked back. The regular recompilations in Gentoo, particularly of X, KDE, or Firefox, started to wear me down and sent me looking for alternatives, but I couldn't bring myself to adjust to Ubuntu or its kin. That's not so say I dislike Gentoo, of course. I really do enjoy Gentoo, even now, and I greatly appreciate the work the Gentoo team does (I still make use of Gentoo for a few things, mostly in virtual machines); I just reached a point where I wanted to enjoy the benefits of a rolling release distribution with the benefits of binary packages, and my time availability is a little less than it was when I used Gentoo. Arch is in some ways much more automated than Gentoo (and in other ways, it requires more manual labor), but all things considered it's the best of two worlds: Rolling release and binary distribution.
Arch with KDE is probably one of the best combinations you could ask for: You benefit from eye candy, usability, a fantastically stable platform, and updates to software packages almost immediately after their release. Moreover, the philosophy of Arch is one of keeping upstream packages as vanilla as possible, so there's little that needs to be done in terms of eradicating obnoxious and invasive package customizations. Even larger packages like KDE are identical to what you'd get if you compiled the sources yourself. I can't say the same for other rolling release distributions like Aptosid which customizes so many of the base packages, it takes time to reconfigure things if you don't happen to have a preassembled set of dotfiles to copy from (which you should anyway). But, I'm not much of a fan of Debian-based systems, so I'm certainly not free of some selection bias....
For anyone wanting to try out Arch, I cannot recommend enough that you install BusyBox first. A system upgrade with pacman -Syu can break your system in spectacular ways (the recent lib migration issue comes to mind).
41 comments
[ 7.4 ms ] story [ 293 ms ] thread[1] http://mattoncloud.org/2013/07/18/fedora-19-on-a-macbook-air...
are you use any osx only apps ?
I highly recommend starting with either Ubuntu or Crunchbang and then moving to Arch. Using Arch will force you to learn much more about Linux and will make you appreciate many of the things that you take for granted.
According to distrowatch, the order is:
1. Linux Mint
2. Debian
3. Ubuntu
Me, I prefer Mint with MATE because with just a few patches the screen is much more readable than any other distro and it is based on Ubuntu, so I have something to fall back on.
Otherwise I would use Arch.
Mint has been consistently winning on Distrowatch since 2011, the year Unity was released.
This is just one poll (although a pretty large one), but Reddit does an annual poll. Ubuntu is still killing it.
http://constantmayhem.com/ty-stuff/linuxsurvey/2013.html
tl;dr: As of now you can have the very best fontrendering in Arch without compiling some patched stuff from the AUR or elsewhere, just by adding his binary repository in pacman.conf. It's top notch. Seriously.
1. Arch Linux on three laptops and one desktop all running encrypted btrfs root filesystems, and two Raspberry Pies each running their roots off of 1TB, unencrypted ext4 external drives.
2. NixOS on an Asus Eee PC 900HD netbook with an unencrypted XFS root filesystem. The functional language for the package manager and system configuration, as well as the interesting package pool symlinking, makes for a unique GNU/Linux experience. I use this for Common Lisp coding and server administration when I'm on the go.
All systems run StumpWM as their desktop environment, though the Pies are usually running headless as a simulated OpenVMS cluster, and dual torrent seed boxes.
I've had some thoughts at looking into FreeBSD but that's not Linux.
Unity is nice when it works but gnome seems to work more often so that is what I prefer.
I've been using Ubuntu for 3 years and just never bothered to switch away to another distro. Before I started using Ubuntu, I had a Windows Vista laptop, and I just wanted to migrate to some Linux away from Windows. Chose the most popular option.
Since I began, I've had two major issues. A failed upgrade from 11.10 to 12-something put me between a rock and a hard place. I couldn't find a way to fix the upgrade or restore to a clean state without reinstalling the OS. Eventually, I just installed 12.04 LTS because I could install it from Windows. The other major issue was my wireless not working (Realtek on a Dell Vostro from 2009). I had to install the wireless drivers from source code (Ubuntu installation tools didn't help at all) and then reboot a few times to get it working.
I use Linux primarily because I wanted a first-class *nix command line: bash, GNU core utils, etc. When this laptop dies, I'll probably switch to a Macbook Air.
Ubuntu LTS CentOS OpenSUSE
Some people swear by Mint or Debian but for most people, there is little to no difference from Ubuntu. Even for servers, using the Ubuntu server install to build a headless server is quick and simple. After that, install something like Docker to install any other services that you require.
I happen to run Ubuntu LTS on the desktop with the GUI reverted to Gnome Classic. There is a package to add that option. But I run CentOS on servers most recently.
I used to run OpenSUSE and only really switched because I needed to get a more balanced experience with other distros. My last OpenSUSE server was a XEN vm host and OpenSUSE made that much easier to set up than plain XEN on OpenSolaris which is what I had used before.
One note about a GUI environment. If you can, leave it off the base server and install it with Docker or KVM or Virtualbox. This may mean that you have to manage two servers in one, and use the CLI a lot, but this is a good learning experience. Modern computers are so fat and fast, that we forget how Linux was in the early days, filling a T1 line using a 486 with 128M of RAM and a 512M hard drive.
https://www.docker.io/learn_more/
Very versatile linux distro and always updated with the latest packages.
Pacman (package manager) is simply amazing and easy to use. Unlike other Linuxes, you know exactly what you are getting when you run the install script.
Lightweight. Nothing gets in your way. There is nothing to uninstall and there are no hidden spywares to opt out of.
I'm sure there's many other benefits. I tried Ubuntu and hated it. It would take me far more time to get Ubuntu to a level I liked (mostly stripping out the gunk) than it did to install Arch the first time.
The documentation is simply incredible. Not only is the documentation excellent for the OS, it is excellent for all of the things I've used out of the package repository and AUR.
I'm not a hardliner, but it would be hard for me to consider using any other distro at this point.
I first used Arch about 2 years ago at the insistence of someone on Slashdot. I was reluctant to try at first due to the comparative weirdness of pacman ("weirdness" is relative) but found myself quickly hooked. I only wish I could remember the username of the kind soul who pointed me toward Arch. I'm indebted to them for being so kind as to offer suggestions to my repeated prying, and I hope that I can one day extend the same kindness toward someone else.
However, it's worth mentioning that Arch isn't necessarily for everyone. You must follow news updates periodically and keep an eye out for updates that may require manual intervention. Worse, if you're lazy and fail to update the system for a significant period of time (usually 6 months but typically 1 year or more), you might encounter circumstances where upgrading the system is difficult or can only be performed in stages with intermediate packages. The disappearance of arm.konnichi.com (sort of a roll-back machine with older packages) sadly makes incremental updates of older systems difficult, but I think the final set of transitions to the latest file system layout bringing Arch up to par with many other distributions that are currently undergoing the /usr merge effectively renders many of these problems moot. But, if you're studious and regularly update the system, you'll rarely have any issues. Suffice it to say that like what dizzystar wrote, Arch often stays out of your way, but it does need a little lovin' now and again.
My first exposure to F/OSS operating systems was through OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and although I later migrated to Gentoo, I've always had a fondness for the BSD spirit of simplicity and fantastic documentation. After Gentoo, I again migrated to Arch and haven't looked back. The regular recompilations in Gentoo, particularly of X, KDE, or Firefox, started to wear me down and sent me looking for alternatives, but I couldn't bring myself to adjust to Ubuntu or its kin. That's not so say I dislike Gentoo, of course. I really do enjoy Gentoo, even now, and I greatly appreciate the work the Gentoo team does (I still make use of Gentoo for a few things, mostly in virtual machines); I just reached a point where I wanted to enjoy the benefits of a rolling release distribution with the benefits of binary packages, and my time availability is a little less than it was when I used Gentoo. Arch is in some ways much more automated than Gentoo (and in other ways, it requires more manual labor), but all things considered it's the best of two worlds: Rolling release and binary distribution.
Arch with KDE is probably one of the best combinations you could ask for: You benefit from eye candy, usability, a fantastically stable platform, and updates to software packages almost immediately after their release. Moreover, the philosophy of Arch is one of keeping upstream packages as vanilla as possible, so there's little that needs to be done in terms of eradicating obnoxious and invasive package customizations. Even larger packages like KDE are identical to what you'd get if you compiled the sources yourself. I can't say the same for other rolling release distributions like Aptosid which customizes so many of the base packages, it takes time to reconfigure things if you don't happen to have a preassembled set of dotfiles to copy from (which you should anyway). But, I'm not much of a fan of Debian-based systems, so I'm certainly not free of some selection bias....