Fedora vs SuSE vs Gentoo for AMD64 vs Ubuntu... Which would you choose and why?

[SniperWulf]

I've been having the toughest time trying to decide on a distro of late. I want something for AMD64, and I've kinda narrowed it down to those 4. Of the 4 listed, which would you choose?

 

[n0cmonkey]

OpenBSD if I really have a choice. Ubuntu or Fedora out of those though.

 

[ArjSiv]

I personally use Gentoo, native support for AMD64 might be a little better. I've also found that Portage handles dependencies really well mostly because everything's source based, but expect to be spending some time compiling

But then I'd also recommend booting up using a Knoppix CD and then compiling from there until you have the core compiled and X set up so you r computer is usable while it's compiling away

 

[MNKyDeth1]

I have tried FC3 x86-64 Ubuntu x86-64 and gentoo x86-64 and when I last tried them was about 6 months ago and F3 x86-64 was imo, easiest to use and the most polished well working x86-64 from the ones I tried. Gentoo was a pain with the chrooting into 32bit land. Ubuntu had severe acpi or apm issues on my machine causing random lockups or freezes like I was running windows or something :/

FC3 x86-64 worked flawlessy for me to the most part. All I changed was the browser back to 32bit so I could use flash and java and all that good stuff.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ArjSiv
I personally use Gentoo, native support for AMD64 might be a little better. I've also found that Portage handles dependencies really well mostly because everything's source based, but expect to be spending some time compiling

But then I'd also recommend booting up using a Knoppix CD and then compiling from there until you have the core compiled and X set up so you r computer is usable while it's compiling away

Or you could use a Debian based distro and be up and running in no time.

 

[qbek]

I would go with Fedora or Ubuntu and would advise against Gentoo for a noob user.
Fedora is huge (bloated) and stable with few hardware incompatibilities. There are a couple of things that it does not offer out of the box, though (like mp3 or NTFS support). If that scares you - go with Ubuntu. Debian would be another alternative I would seriously consider.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: qbek
I would go with Fedora or Ubuntu and would advise against Gentoo for a noob user.
Fedora is huge (bloated) and stable with few hardware incompatibilities. There are a couple of things that it does not offer out of the box, though (like mp3 or NTFS support). If that scares you - go with Ubuntu. Debian would be another alternative I would seriously consider.

What makes Fedora "bloated" and not "full featured?"

 

[qbek]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
What makes Fedora "bloated" and not "full featured?"

The fact that you need to download 4 CD ISOs to install even the simplest setup. For each functionality you basically have to download 10 applications.

I agree however that if you want to have the choice over applications you use Fedora offers flexibility. In fact I use it myself.

 

[SniperWulf]

the last time I tried Fedora, it did feel a bit on the slugish side

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: qbek

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
What makes Fedora "bloated" and not "full featured?"

The fact that you need to download 4 CD ISOs to install even the simplest setup. For each functionality you basically have to download 10 applications.

I agree however that if you want to have the choice over applications you use Fedora offers flexibility. In fact I use it myself.

I haven't done it with fedora, but in the past with redhat not all of the cds were necessary.

 

[volrath]

A "minimal" install of Fedora only requires the First CD. Most only need the first 2/3. Never had to use CD4.

 

[Nothinman]

Debian.

Failing that, Ubuntu.

I haven't done it with fedora, but in the past with redhat not all of the cds were necessary.

Depends, the packages are spread seemingly at random across the CDs so the size of the install doesn't matter if you choose packages during installation from each CD.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Debian.

Failing that, Ubuntu.

I haven't done it with fedora, but in the past with redhat not all of the cds were necessary.

Depends, the packages are spread seemingly at random across the CDs so the size of the install doesn't matter if you choose packages during installation from each CD.

That's always been a big gripe with Redhat/Fedora for me.
But now that they're offering DVD ISO's that's not as much of a problem

Fedora is a good enough distro IMO, so I'd go with either that or Ubuntu.

 

[Promit]

Go Gentoo.

Why? Because Linux is kind of boring when everything "works", and god knows it's a waste of time anyway (unless you are too cheap to buy windows). So if you're going to waste time on Linux, you may as well waste a damned lot of time on it.

 

[Nothinman]

Why? Because Linux is kind of boring when everything "works", and god knows it's a waste of time anyway (unless you are too cheap to buy windows). So if you're going to waste time on Linux, you may as well waste a damned lot of time on it.

Right, it's loads of fun watching compiler output scroll by waiting for things to compile for no good reason.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Promit
Go Gentoo.

Why? Because Linux is kind of boring when everything "works", and god knows it's a waste of time anyway (unless you are too cheap to buy windows). So if you're going to waste time on Linux, you may as well waste a damned lot of time on it.

That's the absolute dumbest thing I've read in a while... Definitely trollin'.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Why? Because Linux is kind of boring when everything "works", and god knows it's a waste of time anyway (unless you are too cheap to buy windows). So if you're going to waste time on Linux, you may as well waste a damned lot of time on it.

Right, it's loads of fun watching compiler output scroll by waiting for things to compile for no good reason.

And this is why gentoo users have a bad rep. The ricers think they have it soooo l33t!!! and think that a stage 1 install is easily the way to go (I admit, when I first tried it I was curious and bought into it), but I like gentoo's usability and portage. What the real users realize that the ricers don't is that -march=whatever -02 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe works plenty well, doesn't break anything, and you can get a fully stage 1 install without having to sit there and watch everything compile like a tool.

(stage3 install or even GRP, then emerge =gcc =gcc-config =glibc, emerge -e world while you surf, whatever. That'll rebuild every single package on your system with your new compiler and you'll have a fully recompiled system that does its thing in the background.. and that's only if you care)

 

[KF]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Promit
Go Gentoo.

Why? Because Linux is kind of boring when everything "works", and god knows it's a waste of time anyway (unless you are too cheap to buy windows). So if you're going to waste time on Linux, you may as well waste a damned lot of time on it.

That's the absolute dumbest thing I've read in a while... Definitely trollin'.

As usual the linux-philes who know the nuts and bolts best can't see what linux is really like. If you don't see the humorous appropriatness of Promits comment, then your advice is suspect. These "which is best" topics degenerate into the insiders most inside idiosynchroses.

Red Hat is usually said to be the most solid of the real linux distros. But RH changed their system. The real Red Hat ibecame proprietary, and Fedora is the free distro, and Fedora is not as very well checked out. But there is a (100% legal) knock off of the real Red Hat which is available.
White Box

>That's the absolute dumbest thing I've read in a while

Except for commentary fron n0monkey, although your comments have a lot of competition from most of the regulars on this forum (drag excepted.)

 

[Nothinman]

The real Red Hat ibecame proprietary

Not true.

and Fedora is not as very well checked out

Not true either. They do add in the newer, more experimental stuff like SELinux but someone has to do it or it'll never get used. RH's decision to make UTF-8 the default LANG in RH9 caused a ton of problems for people at first but overall it got people off their asses in translating their documentation and tools. Fedora is community driven, if you don't think it's QA'd well enough how about contributing some time to test things?

But there is a (100% legal) knock off of the real Red Hat which is available.

How's that possible if RH is proprietary?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: KF

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Promit
Go Gentoo.

Why? Because Linux is kind of boring when everything "works", and god knows it's a waste of time anyway (unless you are too cheap to buy windows). So if you're going to waste time on Linux, you may as well waste a damned lot of time on it.

That's the absolute dumbest thing I've read in a while... Definitely trollin'.

As usual the linux-philes who know the nuts and bolts best can't see what linux is really like. If you don't see the humorous appropriatness of Promits comment, then your advice is suspect. These "which is best" topics degenerate into the insiders most inside idiosynchroses.

Red Hat is usually said to be the most solid of the real linux distros. But RH changed their system. The real Red Hat ibecame proprietary, and Fedora is the free distro, and Fedora is not as very well checked out. But there is a (100% legal) knock off of the real Red Hat which is available.
White Box

>That's the absolute dumbest thing I've read in a while

Except for commentary fron n0monkey, although your comments have a lot of competition from most of the regulars on this forum (drag excepted.)

Ah, a fan. Yeah, all of my posts are absolute shit! Boo hoo.

His comment was a plain and simple troll. Nothing more.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: KF
As usual the linux-philes who know the nuts and bolts best can't see what linux is really like. If you don't see the humorous appropriatness of Promits comment, then your advice is suspect. These "which is best" topics degenerate into the insiders most inside idiosynchroses.

"which is best" topics are a waste of time. We treat them as such. There is no humour in Promit's (it's possessive, not plural) comment.

Red Hat is usually said to be the most solid of the real linux distros. But RH changed their system. The real Red Hat ibecame proprietary, and Fedora is the free distro, and Fedora is not as very well checked out. But there is a (100% legal) knock off of the real Red Hat which is available.
White Box

It isn't proprietary.

>That's the absolute dumbest thing I've read in a while

Except for commentary fron n0monkey, although your comments have a lot of competition from most of the regulars on this forum (drag excepted.)

Yawn. Maybe I'll contribute something worth while next week. :roll:

Keep dreaming about Drag. :sun:

 

[silverpig]

Did you just quote and reply to the same post 3 times?

NEF!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Did you just quote and reply to the same post 3 times?

NEF!

Twice, I'm just a NE.

 

[KF]

Why do I have to fill experts in on things they should know?
>Not true.
FC is available for free download. RH (after 9) is not. Get it? Name me a legal mirror site that has the later Red Hat (unaltered) available. FC is all over the place. If you don't understand the legalistics, you can guess what is behind it, and interpolate what the law is.

>

and Fedora is not as very well checked out

>Not true either.

As usual, the avid linux-philes weren't paying attention.

>Fedora is community driven, if you don't think it's QA'd well enough how
>about contributing some time to test things?

All I'm doing is relaying some linux-philes opinions abot the relative merits and why they switched to the new White Box knockoff rather than continue with FC iterations. Things were broken that always had worked, and, being the knowledgeable experts they were, they tracked them down to simple items that QC could easily have found, but which were fine in White Box (=RH). White Box uses only Red Hat source code. So, explain to me how FC is as thoroughly checked out.
One linux-philes editorial
He converts to White Box

Since I have never gotten everything to work that I really wanted to in ANY llinux distro, I don't have any additional blocks of time, even if I had the skills required to thoroughly wring-out a distro, which I don't. IAC, I wouldn't know if something was broken, or if I just didn't understand something linux-philes would claiim is obvious.

But there is a (100% legal) knock off of the real Red Hat which is available.

>How's that possible if RH is proprietary?

Not that hard. They include some proprietary stuff in the offical RH releases. The White Box outfit has to take it out. As I under stand it, it is primarily the Red Hat trademark that is all over the place. They can't legally have that in their distro. (If you run across any more, they want you to notify them so they can take it out.) AFAIK, you can distribute open source programs on the same CD or in the same package with non-open source programs. (take Solaris 10 for example.) Red Hat is particularly sensitive to being open source (no MP3 decoder?), which makes it vulnerable to cloning by using only the sources.

I guess the linux-philes are under the impression that because a distro uses open sources, the distro is non-proprietary. Wrong.

Take another example. Mandrake has a free limited edition on 3 CDs, and another proprietary version with more. There are no out-in-the-open sites that have the latter version. Sites like cheapbytes.com and others sell the free version CDs (copies), but not the pay version CDs. Why? They can't do it legally. Back when both the free and pay versions of RH were called Red Hat, cheapbytes had to call it Pink Tie (wink, wink), and refer customers to some lawyerly speal about "a pending free speech question" in order to work around Red Hats requirements even for the free version.

Of course if you guys use warez versions you wouldn't know that...

As usual, the linux-philes state things positively as if they knew what they were talking about. But they don't, as usual. You can't legally copy the non-free version of Red Hat. That makes iit proprietary.

Face it: People do not give away their own work without some compensation, when their livelyhood depends on it, even if they are using the work of others for free.

 

[KF]

>"which is best" topics are a waste of time. We treat them as such.
If you did, no reply would be better. I can see you have no particular idea which is best though.

> There is no humour in Promit's (it's possessive, not plural) comment.

LOL. Anyone who had to alter their linux setup knows what he means, or had to struggle with conceited linux-philes while trying to get an answer out of them.

>His comment was a plain and simple troll. Nothing more.
You reply to trolls? Pointless.

You won't let anyone with a different outlook than yours go by without taking a swipe at them. OTOH, your replies don't contain evidence of thought. Better not to reply at all.

This post will give you another chance for another n0monkey content-free comment. Can you let even one go by?