I grew up on Slackware, but I'd argue that today FreeBSD (ie, a "real Unix") is a better option (mostly for its quality documentation and sane organisation).
I love Arch. They've done a great job straddling the line between minimalistic and easy to use. It reminds me (in a good way) of how Linux distros tended to work many years ago.
I've only been using Linux for half a year, maybe, and in that time I've tried Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Arch. Gentoo will always hold a place in my heart for teaching me more in three days than I learned in three months on Ubuntu, but maintaining it was just more work than I wanted to put in for my primary use machine. It also has the best community I've found--any question I had was already answered, in depth, on the forums. Ubuntu and Arch seem to have too many people guessing at answers instead of knowing them, from what I've experienced.
I've been consistently impressed with the Arch philosophy and implementation. Pacman's a dream to work with and the AUR/ABS is a beautiful system.
I've been using Linux for longer than I care to remember (and 386BSD before that) and after a few years on Ubuntu I was amazed at how much of a breath of fresh air Arch is.
Ubuntu always worked well compared to other distros, I could do stuff and it'd just work or there'd be plenty of help and support. I put Arch on an old P3 850 with 256mb of RAM and it just flies. I can be logged into my desktop from cold boot in the time it takes for my dual core Vista laptop to go from login to desktop. That (and discovering awesome wm) are the reasons that Arch gets my vote. Yes there's a learning curve as with any new distro or program but it's definitely worthwhile.
I'm really enjoying the Moblin 2.1 interface. It's a pretty radical rethink of how you use your computer. Most importantly, it feels fast and easy to use even with the tiny trackpad and small screen of a netbook.
However, it's still not baked enough for general use. I'll probably switch back to Ubuntu Netbook Remix after Koala comes out.
* Close to upstream, for early access to packaged software,
* Security is a primary concern: SELinux by default, Firewall by default, PolicyKit, Exec-Shield, Compile Time Buffer Checks, ELF Data Hardening, Restricted Kernel Memory Access, Stack Smash Protection, Buffer Overflow Detection, Variable Reordering, etc.
* Complete transparency of the distribution (including open sourcing all software they create for their internal processes),
* I prefer PackageKit/yum/rpm,
* They contribute heavily to upstream, as part of their process,
* They drive the development of a lot of the software other distributions use (NetworkManager, D-Bus, PolicyKit, PackageKit, ConsoleKit, HAL, SELinux policy, PulseAudio, etc.).
I mainly use Fedora because their community is targeted at contributors rather than users. I switched to Fedora so I could contribute to their infrastructure team and get to play with all their webapps. In Fedora you can become anything you want. You can play with all of the servers, the build servers, updates, wiki, blogs, planet etc. given you've proven yourself.
I've recently begun contributing packages as well. The processes are a lot more complex than Arch for example, but it's all very documented and sane once you get over the steep learning curve. Packages get through a lot more filters before they get accepted and there's also the "send all patches upstream" mantra which makes Fedora special because we are contributing to other distros as well this way :)
Of all these choices OS X is the only one that is legally 'Unix'. The Unix trademark is owned by The Open Group, and to use the term Unix you have to meet several criteria and pay a substantial fee. The FOSS *nixes do generally meet the requirements, but do not pay the fee.
In my experience I've seen it used in servers quite a bit, typically those running cpanel. Its very similar to RHEL but without the pay-support plans. I've helped to run a machine running it for 3-4 years now, with no real issues.
I use it in combination with perceus to run my cluster. very smooth install, but I don't update it very often. Best thing for that sort of application, in my opinion.
If you need any software that depends on relatively new libraries - forget about it. Centos is seriously behind with features. It could be useful for "standard server" though - stuff like http daemons, etc. will run just fine and will be quite stable.
Not for home usage though - I don't think you'd like to run on something with kernel v2.6.18-92.1.1.el5 ;) Yup - that's kernel from 2006 with ~100 custom patches applied. Forget about any new gfx drivers or wifi.
This is turning out to be interesting. Ubuntu and OSX are top choices and everything else seems really distant. From the top clicks on distrowatch.com, I had assumed OpenSUSE,fedora, debian and mint will be closer too.
I use the following in my home setup: 16 ubuntu machines, 3 OpenBSD machines, 1 freebsd, 8 centos (one headnode, 7 diskless compute nodes) 2 osx, 1 windows (oops-two; wife's laptop). Several of these are old recycled boxes, but every one of these has a job.
In retrospect, I wish I had done 8 of the ubuntu servers as freebsd.
I'm typing this from #! right now. It's nice if you are looking for a lighter Ubuntu-based desktop, though I still ended up pulling down 7 gigabytes of software once I went through all the packages I wanted. That's a number that borders on "inconceivably large."
Not sure why some people expressed surprise with debian being so far behind. I would use Ubuntu for home use as well even though we use Debian for all things Linux + Server.
I would have been surprised until a few months ago. I tried Ubuntu 3-4 years ago and uninstalled it the same day because GNOME was crashing, which I found ridiculous. I've tried it again because it has python2.6 packages and it's OK. However, I do still get the occasional kernel panic, and it's recently begun crashing on shutdown.
I've been using Ubuntu @ home and Debian for servers (and RHEL for day job), but I'm considering dumping Ubuntu. dontzap and stuff like that is crazysauce.
Once used Ubuntu for desktop (I loved it, but my old laptop eventually died).
Right now, OSX for desktop (I just use a laptop that I always keep with me, no multiple computers, just a single one!). And Debian for headless machines / web servers and so on. I really love it.
(I also have to deal with "degradated" Windows installations at home, so every computer keeps its factory OS with a good security policy, much easier to re-install from zero)
The main server at home is debian. i have one desktop box and the tiny vaio running ubuntu. recently being hacking obj-c for the iphone so osx has become my main desktop. have been considering switching to opensolaris for my server.
OpenSolaris is not really ready for a server, plus about one in four builds breaks something useful. If the features you need are in Solaris 10, it's probably worth the time to learn the grumpy old UNIX rather than be distracted by the new shiny.
I ran Gentoo from 2003 to 2007 -- I credit it with opening my eyes to how simple and elegant *nix is. When I got tired of monthly upgrades taking six to twelve hours on each of my four systems (including twenty to forty minutes at the console for each, running various commands and fixing things that inevitably broke), I switched to Debian Sid. When it (unsurprisingly) proved too unstable, I moved to Ubuntu, and have remained with it ever since. I don't always get to play with the latest shiny toys, but I'm amply compensated by weekly upgrades that take no more than sixty seconds. I'm glad that I gained a more thorough understanding of my system's workings through Gentoo, but I find Ubuntu lets me focus my attention on tasks more interesting than system administration.
104 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 202 ms ] threadI've only been using Linux for half a year, maybe, and in that time I've tried Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Arch. Gentoo will always hold a place in my heart for teaching me more in three days than I learned in three months on Ubuntu, but maintaining it was just more work than I wanted to put in for my primary use machine. It also has the best community I've found--any question I had was already answered, in depth, on the forums. Ubuntu and Arch seem to have too many people guessing at answers instead of knowing them, from what I've experienced.
I've been consistently impressed with the Arch philosophy and implementation. Pacman's a dream to work with and the AUR/ABS is a beautiful system.
Ubuntu always worked well compared to other distros, I could do stuff and it'd just work or there'd be plenty of help and support. I put Arch on an old P3 850 with 256mb of RAM and it just flies. I can be logged into my desktop from cold boot in the time it takes for my dual core Vista laptop to go from login to desktop. That (and discovering awesome wm) are the reasons that Arch gets my vote. Yes there's a learning curve as with any new distro or program but it's definitely worthwhile.
I'm really enjoying the Moblin 2.1 interface. It's a pretty radical rethink of how you use your computer. Most importantly, it feels fast and easy to use even with the tiny trackpad and small screen of a netbook.
However, it's still not baked enough for general use. I'll probably switch back to Ubuntu Netbook Remix after Koala comes out.
Shared portage tree over NFS, distcc cluster, etc.
* Close to upstream, for early access to packaged software,
* Security is a primary concern: SELinux by default, Firewall by default, PolicyKit, Exec-Shield, Compile Time Buffer Checks, ELF Data Hardening, Restricted Kernel Memory Access, Stack Smash Protection, Buffer Overflow Detection, Variable Reordering, etc.
* Complete transparency of the distribution (including open sourcing all software they create for their internal processes),
* I prefer PackageKit/yum/rpm,
* They contribute heavily to upstream, as part of their process,
* They drive the development of a lot of the software other distributions use (NetworkManager, D-Bus, PolicyKit, PackageKit, ConsoleKit, HAL, SELinux policy, PulseAudio, etc.).
Those are some things that come to mind.
I've recently begun contributing packages as well. The processes are a lot more complex than Arch for example, but it's all very documented and sane once you get over the steep learning curve. Packages get through a lot more filters before they get accepted and there's also the "send all patches upstream" mantra which makes Fedora special because we are contributing to other distros as well this way :)
I still wouldn't call it a *nix.
ta-da!
For all production servers I run Debian because they're the easiest to keep updated and to re-deploy at short notice.
Not for home usage though - I don't think you'd like to run on something with kernel v2.6.18-92.1.1.el5 ;) Yup - that's kernel from 2006 with ~100 custom patches applied. Forget about any new gfx drivers or wifi.
In retrospect, I wish I had done 8 of the ubuntu servers as freebsd.
1. What are you using them all for?
2. Vertical or horizontal?
Right now, OSX for desktop (I just use a laptop that I always keep with me, no multiple computers, just a single one!). And Debian for headless machines / web servers and so on. I really love it.
(I also have to deal with "degradated" Windows installations at home, so every computer keeps its factory OS with a good security policy, much easier to re-install from zero)
(None/Windows isn't really accurate for me - I have a POSIX-compliant emulation layer on top of Windows)
I've a C64 in the closet, too. Should bust that out, see if it still boots.