Most stable and tested distribution?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: passive mode ftp high ports driving me nuts
Next: equivalent of f.circleup or CirculateUp for fvwm2
From: J G Miller on 6 Jan 2010 09:36 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:33:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Debian is very Gnomeish. Only if you allow it to be. It is very easy to make Debian FVWMish, IceWMish, WindowMakerish, Afterstepish, or even KDEish etc, according to one's personal preferences. > At this stage its probably better to bite the bullet and go debian > unstable That sounds like the exact opposite of what Giorgos Tzampanakis was requesting -- "most stable and tested".
From: J G Miller on 6 Jan 2010 09:40 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:32:45 +0000, Bit Twister wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:06:25 +0000 (UTC), Giorgos Tzampanakis wrote: > >> Free. > > Then fedora is not one to chose from. Pardon? Did you mean to write Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Also to add to the non-gratis distributions would be Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED) and Suse Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) which require payment to get bug and security fixes as is the case with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Which is why other posters have wisely suggested looking at CENTOS.
From: J G Miller on 6 Jan 2010 09:49 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:39:30 +0100, Sidney Lambe wrote: > The distros are illusions. It's just Linux. At a first approximation yes -- it is just a Linux kernel underneath, but that Linux kernel is not necessarily the official kernel but a distribution customized kernel with patches applied different to what other distributions have applied. As for the user software, that is primarily a GNU core with other major applications thrown in, but whose version will very much depend on which distribution one chooses. For core components of a GNU/Linux system, one is very much at the mercy of the upstream developers however as to how effective they are in resolving deficiencies in the software.
From: J G Miller on 6 Jan 2010 09:52 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:33:19 +0000, Dan C wrote: > Simple answer. Slackware. Rock solid stable. Nothing better. Do you have any opinions regarding Slackware derivatives, eg Frugalware, Vector Linux etc?
From: Sidney Lambe on 6 Jan 2010 10:13
On comp.os.linux.misc, J G Miller <miller(a)yoyo.ORG> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:39:30 +0100, Sidney Lambe wrote: > >> The distros are illusions. It's just Linux. > > At a first approximation yes -- it is just a Linux kernel > underneath, but that Linux kernel is not necessarily the > official kernel but a distribution customized kernel with > patches applied different to what other distributions > have applied. Yes. It didn't seem appropriate to go into that much detail at that point in the discussion. Those patches (Slackware has none) are less significant than you are implying. I have dozens of Debian packages on my box that run fine under a stock kernel. And quite a few RPMs from various distros. > As for the user software, that is primarily a GNU core > with other major applications thrown in, but whose version > will very much depend on which distribution one chooses. With just a little knowhow you can easily change versions of any user apps you want. This is less true with system' software, and less necessary. > > For core components of a GNU/Linux system, one is very much > at the mercy of the upstream developers however as to how > effective they are in resolving deficiencies in the software. No. You can build a custom 'distro' with very little knowhow if you don't like any of the available distros. There are socres of them (see distrowatch.com and linuxfromscratch.org) I use Slackware's basic system software because it is simple and straightforward and I couldn't do better myself. But that's where the resemblence ends, so to speak. Sid |