__/ [casioculture@xxxxxxxxx] on Monday 24 October 2005 12:06 \__
> After trying quite a few linux distributions, I'm settling on ubuntu,
> and I'm posting about my choice here in case it would be informative to
> Reasons are why it's ubuntu
> - supports x86 and amd64
> - can be had as an install distro and a livecd
Valid and important point if you want to persuade someone to migrate to
Linux. Also, this gives insight into hardware detection and compatibility.
> - can be had as a single cd or a dvd
> - easy to install
Very much so, I agree. Also a rather autonomous installation, I might add,
which makes the user less likely to take the wrong path.
> - text installer (i like that more than a graphical one)
> - good hardware detection (didn't detect my monitor like opensuse and
> mandriva did but it was easy to fix with editing xorg.conf - so
> opensuse and mandriva have better hardware detection but ubuntu not so
> bad, much better than others, at least it detected my SATA drives and
> sound, unlike other distros I tried - I also had to edit fstab as its
> attempt at detecting my windows partitions was not as good as
> mandriva's, but editing fstab is easy now for me)
The screen resolution is often an issue and many other users fail to attain
maximal resolution without changing xorg.conf.
> - grub bootloader (I like grub more than lilo - I also like that ubuntu
> has a spartan, text bootsplash with no images)
> - It has gnome (i like gnome more than kde)
I can't say that I agree, but KDE can be installed very easily. I am told it
becomes a little less stable though.
> - comes on 1 cd (good minimal but functional install, better than
> opensuse's 5 cds)
I would rather have the 5 CD's equivalent, which saves installation time.
> - uses debian's dpkg (I don't like rpm)
> - software installs are easy with dpkg and synaptic for machines
> connected to the net
> - ubuntu has its own official repositories on the site accessible with
> a web browser if your machine isn't connected, and the repository is
> well-organised and quite nice, with a great interface that shows
> dependencies and links to them (opensuse directs to unofficial rpm
> repositories on the net where you have to sift through rpms for redhat,
> mandriva... etc and different versions of each)
Synaptic has always worked flawlessly and flagged dependencies correctly. I
am very satisfied with it.
> - nice and elegant polish (no dancing little penguins like in other
They ought to change that brownish default theme in my humble opinion. It is
a matter of taste nonetheless.
> - has a wiki
> - has very, very good forums
> - the distro, the wiki, the forums, the repositories and almost
> everything official from ubuntu have a consistent look and quality
> - once a release is made its packages are version-frozen (I think
> that's good though some think gentoo and fedora core are better because
> they're updated, but i think it makes life easier having something
> stable to refer to)
> - has frequent and clear release cycle, and releases are up-to-date
> - very popular (a good sign of its future, most popular distro on
> - seems to have good momentum
> - seems well-funded
> - all free for download (unlike mandriva)
So far, so good.
> - seems a little slow/sluggish (maybe not slower than opensuse, but
> slower than slackware-derived distros or mandriva, eventhough it's an
> amd64 and slackware-derived distros are x86 - ubuntu doesn't impress me
> with its speed, but slackware-derived ones or mandriva did)
Seems pretty fast to me, but I can't base that on proper benchmarks.
> Regarding other distros
> - slackware-derived distros are fast
> - slackware and derived distros weren't that good with my hardware
> detection, such as sata drives, sound, and there were either no
> official amd64 ports or none at all
> - I did otherwise like slackware and its derived distros - it's simple,
> minimalist, and has very good documentation online, and it's easy to
> find application packages for slackware. And speaking of
> slackware-derived distros, slax is delightful, I love that thing
> - I didn't like Yast in opensuse, I didn't like its dependencies
> dialog, I didn't like how I needed to change CDs with opensuse when
> isntalling something and how a DVD is not available, I didn't like that
> opensuse directs to unofficial repositories where one sifts through a
> - I like how it's possible to download two full dvds or 13 cds (13!) of
> debian sarge for a machine that's not connected, but debian sarge is a
> little out of date already compared to other distros, and likely won't
> be updated for a long time
> - Gnoppix is nice, makes another gnome-fronted debian-derived sibling
> for ubuntu
> - I wasn't excited about rpm-based distros. The most prominent of them
> is almost proprietary and bloated. Too much GUI. I much preferred
> debian and slack derived distros - they were smaller, simpler, and
> I think that's about it for now. Thanks all.
I agree with all that you say, but I still consider Ubuntu to be a
distribution which is most suitable to beginners or those who are after a
quick and independent installation (e.g. terminals, Web servers...).
For anything else, I can't cope without SuSE or other comprehensive
distributions. In fact, there is a trade-off:
-Ubuntu is quick to install and a pain to upgrade and extend. Fetching gcc,
xmms and other packages seems like an utterly unnecessary step.
-SuSE might be complex, but once installed, all that you need is already
Roy S. Schestowitz | SuSE, Mandriva, Fedora - Gotta love them girls
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
12:15pm up 59 days 22:24, 4 users, load average: 0.27, 0.26, 0.21
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms