What is Digg?62 Comments
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+65But wait. It gets more overwhelming. http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#13
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30"Vista has too many versions and causes consumer confusion."
- DigitalJester, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Then there wouldn't be choice.
- Sepeteus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Glasses: This is easy. Bad eyesight.
Pony tail: Saving a couple hundred dollars by using a free OS is nothing compared to saving thousands of dollars by not going to a barbershop every month.
Goatee: You don't want to look like those full bearded Unix developers.
Mostly bald: Developing an OS obviously pumps you full of testosterone. Coding leads to bugs, bugs lead to anger, anger leads to testosterone. - DigitalJester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Well, the word on digg says, "Ubuntu". I personally prefer Fedora Core 6, but thats me.
Download Ubuntu, Fedora Core 6, Slackware and SuSE. Try each one. Then out of those, which ever you like the most, try another based off of it. Spread your wings and try as many as you can. I can guarantee that you'll find one you'll like, - davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16A lot of the good stuff does end up in many distros, like GNOME/KDE and the kernel, to name a few.
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@mcatrage:
Download and burn a copy of Ubuntu and run it off the CD. You don't even need to install the OS (but you can choose to do so later). Then go to Applications->Add/Remove to see how easy it is to find and install new software. You can do it all in fewer clicks than in Windows and you don't have to type a thing. "soon enough" is now. - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@corevette:
nah, the people who are smart enough to know BSD exists are usually smart enough to realize it's not got anything to do with Linux, though I have heard people incorrectly equating BSD with Solaris ( one's BSD, the other's SVR4 ) - skywake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10trust me.... combining everything into a big mixing pot never works
you can even see it in this pic, look at "united Linux" - dkoon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14And people said Windows Vista Editions were confusing...
- spudlyo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Linux is mainstream. It's in data centers in every corner of the globe. Just because it doesn't have huge desktop penetration doesn't mean it's not mainstream. More and more computing is done on remote servers tucked away in data centers as web applications become more powerful and more widely used. While the desktop OS may never completely go away, I believe it will become less relevant over time, as your average mom-and-pop user will find most of their computing needs met by web applications.
- chrisharcourt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Nice - they're both awesome though.
- DevastatorIIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ouch
- visarya, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6how many times this story will come on frontpage
- sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think what a lot of people don't realize when they say "Why don't all these smart people make one super distro"
is that since linux is open source, one mans work can make it into any distro, and in fact certain peoples work make it into many distros.
For example, GNOME, every person who has worked on GNOME has played a part in creating each distro that uses GNOME.
or xorg, every person that has worked on xorg and xfree86 has played a part in every distro that uses X.
The code between distro's doesn't vary as much as some think. The difference between distros is what packages come with it (and what version), how packages are handled, and the goals for each distro. From there code differences are minimal and include things like security fixes, cohesion enhancements, etc... - hambend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"God I wish all these talented people could work on one 'distro'."
I bet that's what they were thinking when they started on "United Linux". Take a look on the diagram. They've taken (presumably) the best elements of SuSE, SCO, Conectiva and Yellow Dog and... well, they gave up after about a year.
It would be nice if the open source community could be focused on a unified task, but how would that work? Not only is there a limit on how many developers can practically work on a single disto, it's impossible to tell in advance which distro will turn out best in the long run. Should we focus on creating a comprehensive monolithic distribution like Slackware, or should we spend our time on a more flexible package management system like Debian?
The obvious answer is to try both and see which approach the end-user prefers, and that's exactly why we have so many different distributions. We give the end-user the power to choose what works for them, and that's how we know which approaches are worth pusuing in future. You can't do that if you only have a single distribution. - bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ryannerd
"Tell me what flavor of Linux is best"
It all depends on what you are needing.
if you have a huge data warehouse with a large tech staff that is well trained with linux i would say use debian (very powerful and if the techs are good they can keep the servers running for years with little or no down time).
If you are a Medium to large company and your main business is not sever related i would say redhat enterprise (Almost as nice as debian but the main pulling point hear is redhat's awesome support Keep your entire network running with just a few desktop techs).
If you are wanting to switch from windows at home or have some non-tech person to switch i would recommend ubuntu. (live cd so the person can try it and make sure it dose what they need it to before you install. an installer that your grandma can figure out. But the best part of ubuntu is the package repository. since it has such a large fan base the package repository has close to 100% of the applications you could want. and it is all 2 click install select the package click apply.)
If you are fairly technically inclined i would suggest you download slackware open suse ubuntu fedora and as many other distributions you want to. install one (i suggest ubuntu) as your primary and dual boot the others one at a time until you find the one you love.
in the linux world it is all about having the choice of what you want.
never believe some one who says their distro is the best. because non of them are. they are all great for different uses. - osofast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sweet, New desktop background! thanks
- noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Warning: Biased user with useless opinion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What's the deal with SELinux being a branch off of RedHat?
I thought SELinux was a kernel patch developed by the NSA, not a distro...... - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Mostly bald: Developing an OS obviously pumps you full of testosterone. Coding leads to bugs, bugs lead to anger, anger leads to testosterone."
And pulling out your hair every time you run into that damned elusive bug that seems to only be there when it's 4am and you've been up three days trying to meet a deadline. - ryannerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Finally! Someone that is giving advise without the obligatory M$ bashing and are trying to help answer my question. Thanks @maninblac1 -- I've heard of Red Hat more than I have heard of Debian. What are the primary differences between the two?
- jordanlund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The 1993 Slackware distro was my first Linux... It's nice to see it's still around.
It was the first Linux distro that had everything you needed on one CD. You didn't have to go download a bunch of files individually. - jordanlund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The 1993 Slackware distro was my first Linux... Nice to see it's still around.
- ryannerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Thanks for the advice @digitaljester as well. Is there a chart (not as confusing as this time-line thing) that shows the major strengths and weaknesses of each flavor of Linux? I wish I had time to try all the distros, but I need a leg up on what each version offers so I can limit the number of "Linux versions to install and try over the weekend" count.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll agree with estvir. After seeing people start suing Microsoft because they couldn't make their own damn informed decision on which version of Vista to use......I'm not entirely sure how well they could choose between 300+ distros.
I'd suggest downloading and burning a few LiveCDs to try a few distros out before you make a choice. - InvisibleMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@migla
Debian is a large distro, but it has no where near the package list available to portage users.
For anyone else, here are some easy tips on choosing a distro:
First off the desktop environment is not the OS or the distro and can be (more or less) anything that is designed to work with the current Linux kernel. On that point, it is important to know the Linux kernel (and the GNU tools like gcc) are the only things that are mostly the same from one flavor to the next. So when picking a distro of linux, its not how it looks are interacts with you that is important but how it installs, update, and manages program for you. The basic rule of thumb for desktop environments (but I encourage trying many different environments) is KDE for a more 'windows-ish' feel, and GNOME for a more 'mac-ish' feel. (Of course some people disagree)
Distros and my recommendation for windows or mac users:
Debian: Pros, its free as in speech and as in beer and its developers are fanatical about maintaining that. Cons, If you are new to Linux stay away in favor of its more user friendly cousin Ubuntu.
Ubuntu: Pros, Super easy install, super easy package system, super easy updating, and huge community. Cons, lacks flexibility of some of other distros.
Red Hat: Pros, professional services available, decent package system. Cons, Its defineing quality is not free.
SuSE: Pros, great user interface Cons, .... I don't know much about this one really :)
Gentoo: Cons, Hard to install and by hard I mean there is a big giant manual you need read. Command line is your most important interface (some people don't consider this a con). Puts you on the bleeding edge of Linux. Pros, Installing package nirvana! You want a program, you type 'emerge and its downloaded and installed. Easy as hell updating due to the portage package system. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I tried to run this through Rasterbator to make a poster, but it didn't come out too good. Anyone know of a better way?
- ryannerd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I ask a legitimate question about Linux that hints at or displays a possible problem with Linux or a reasonable concern but is negative toward the O/S and you Linux lovers all bury your head in the sand and say "At least it's not M$". So what!
Tell me what flavor of Linux is best. Criticize M$ for giving too many options with Vista if you like, but Linux lovers come across as huge hypocrites. Just look at the distro time-line for Linux; it's a mess.
Go on, bury me and your heads in the sand...I can feel the grains of sand hitting my face already... - Antebios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm going to sue you for my medical bills. THIS HURT MY BRAIN!!!!!!!
- migla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ryannerd Debian is the largest os there is, in terms of available packages(over 18 000) and supported architectures (11). It's developed by thousands of volunteers. It releases "when it's done", having a development of several years sometimes. It is considered very stable, but that also means stable packages will sometimes be of versions that are some years behind the corresponding packages in "bleeding edge" distros. You could ofcourse use the "unstable" branch of debian for more up to date packages.
RedHat is big in the server market and costs an arm and a leg if you want the commercial support, which is the point of redhat, I think. They release the source, of course, but you can get pre-compiled RedHat in the form of CentOS (and others), who just download the source, strip the distro of RedHat-logos and such (i think) and compile.
Technically, the differences in package management (.deb vs .rpm) is the biggest difference. - geminus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is missing a whole slew of knoppix forks like Knoppix STD, F.I.R.E, etc... WTF?
- MWeather, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 If your Linux distro is missing a feature from another distro you want, you simply install it. Vista's choices are confusing because you can't get the missing features at all. You either choose right the first time, or you're SOL.
- spudlyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ryannerd
It all depends on what you want Linux to do for your business. Red Hat Enterprise Linux would be my choice for a business server OS. I like it personally because I'm familiar with the Red Hat flavor of Linux. It's a better choice for business than Red Hat Fedora Core because it has a longer support life cycle. Red Hat will continue making bug/security fixes for it for years to come. If you need to run Oracle databases/applications it's probably the only sane choice.
If you want to use Linux as a desktop OS for your business I'd recommend Ubuntu. It's easy to install, maintain, looks sharp, and in my opinion is the most desktop centric Linux OS. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Their mistake was fiddling with the standard portage snapshot. There really was no need but it seriously broke any chance of upgrades.
- stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is that an observation or a joke? :)
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can try all the versions of Vista for free too, legally.
Bad luck there. - Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is a fork you *****.
The continuation of Red Hay Linux 6. You say so yourself. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Seriously this doesn't mention all the various forks like Fluxbuntu etc.
- TheLee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Holy snap, my mind was just blown.
I love how in the UNIX history, things start getting much more simplified once you enter the new millenium. Ah, attrition. - bnoise, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1where's Gentoo?
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3There are more Ubuntu derivatives than there are distros on this.
- shellwe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yea, but the difference is unlike Vista, all these are free, so I won't have to buy each version to give her a try, just a couple hours on a fast network, a 50 pack of CDs and BitTorrent.
If I ever get a 1900x1400 monitor, this will surely be my new desktop, at least on my linux distro.
my thoughts... - bryonak, on 05/20/2009, -0/+0Here's an updated version: http://digg.com/linux_unix/GNU_Linux_Distro_Timeli ...
- zachblume, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3And we wonder why people won't switch to "Linux"?
- poodbrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like seeing the history or lines of Linux or where they were all derived. Who cares which is better, pick what works for you, try as many as you want. Its an easy thing to download and load into a Virtual Machine to test out.
- TheBS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The timeline is WRONG on Red Hat/Fedora.
Fedora is NOT a fork of Red Hat Linux, it is THE continuation of Red Hat Linux as of 2003 November. The Red Hat Linux release 10 Beta became Fedora Test and, subsequently, Fedora Core release 1.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a FORK of Red Hat Linux, the first release being 2.1 in 2002 March (possibly RHL 6.2"E" in 2000 March in some definitions of RHEL "release 1"), forked from Red Hat Linux release 7.2/7.3 . Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 3 was forked from Red Hat Linux 9/Fedora Core 1 (more the former than the latter), release 4 from Fedora Core release 3 and release 5 from Fedora Core release 5/6 (more the latter than the former). - gcodori, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0according to this flowchart - puppy, pardus, rock and yopper have never (ever) forked from the beginning of (Linux) time....inaccurate? I can understand why Linux from scratch hasn't, as it is "build your own distro" anyway.
- ryannerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Kind of. Most people will just use the O/S that comes with the computer they buy. Usually Vista Home and most people will be kinda happy with that. Businesses on the other hand have quite a few confusing choices. Most businesses have learned to wait about a year before "upgrading" to a new O/S from M$. By this time the sheeple led companies will just go with the most popular business version of Vista and ignore the geeks and nerds because well they are all just geeks and nerds and don't know anything about business.
This multiple distro is the biggest thing that bothers me about Linux. Which of the 100+ flavors of Linux should I go with? Novell's attempt at commercializing Unix/Linux? I don't think so, they are too much in bed with M$ right now to be trusted. So which flavor?! - noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Haha, look at Sabayon. The high-tech, feature rich distro riddled with bugs.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 