Best Linux OS

rdwittyrdwitty Upstate New York
edited September 2003 in Science & Tech
I was just wondering what version (out of 100s probably) of Linux is the best version for personal use (not a business). I figured that I could get my programming on a good track with Linux's supposedly kickass compiler. I also hope not to break the bank.

Comments

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Most people will say either Red Hat or Mandrake since they are the most user friendly of the bunch.
  • rdwittyrdwitty Upstate New York
    edited September 2003
    Red Hat is one I was suggested by a friend. I just have one of those "free OS"-aphobias . I fear that they will kill my system. Are they really that bad?
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Heheh, I would never call Linux "bad" - multi billion dollar corporations and whole governments use Linux, so..... make your own decision. :) If it didn't work, people wouldn't be using it globally..
  • rdwittyrdwitty Upstate New York
    edited September 2003
    Thanks for all your help "primesuspect"
  • AuthorityActionAuthorityAction Missouri Member
    edited September 2003
    I've tried both RH and Mandrake and out of the 2 I prefer Mandrake. I find it a lot easier to use and theres some things that RH doesn't have. But both are really good and easy to use.
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak
    leans towards Slackware, or Gentoo, but I'm a geek. :D
     Houston, TX Member
    edited September 2003
    leans towards Slackware, or Gentoo, but I'm a geek. :D
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I'd go Slackware 9, it is amazingly easy, but at the same time can teach you alot about the OS. But I seem to have a Linux Mind Block since I can't seem to grasp anything in Linux.
  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited September 2003
    Suse is also very easy to install and liked by many. Mandrake tends to have the best hardware compatibility (although the stuff doesn't always work right off the start it almost always works right out of the install).

    If you're got a good connection i'd recommend downloading at least mandrake and suse and trying them both. There's also things called "live cds" (or sys on cd or etc) that allow you to have a complete Linux system on a c-d, these are great just for messing around with when you're starting and there's no changes required to your HD. Of course the disadvantage is you can't exactly save your settings and such.

    And there's a waaaay bigger chance that installing windows will fubar your HD than installing a linux distro, unless you do something really wierd. The old "i installed linux and it messed up my computer" is pretty much a myth perpetrated by those who'd rather not try something different.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Uuuh.

    There's no large chance that you'll FUBAR your machine with EITHER operating system unless you're a giant ****ing retard. If anything though, juggling the multiple requisite partitions can be a little overwhelming for some, and that WILL FUBAR your PC if you don't know how to fix it.
  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited September 2003
    I didn't say there was a large chance did I? I just said the chance was higher with windows because I wanted to get a rise out of you ;), j/k. The reason why I say this is that windows tends to over-write teh MBR while most Linux installs give you a choice. The default windows partitioning utlities are also lacking compared to even the worst linux installs. Admittedly QNX has the worst partitioning utility as it only allows you to select the fraction of your ENTIRE drive you want to partition for it (5%, 10% 25% 50% or 100% or something like that).
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Its all personal preference. Other peoples ideas are exactly that, just their ideas. Try out a few different ones or talk to people who have each one then make your decision.

    I cant stand Red Hat and Mandrake, to be honest.

    NS
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    what about Gentoo? ...sorry if this seems ignorant but I don't know a whole lot about linux yet.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Linux is a progression. Starting out with an easy distro in my experience works best :) You can learn without totally being overwhelmed by it's complexity. Once you have a grip on it, lose the GUI and learn the command line. Then.. take on slack or even a BSD.

    It all takes time. Being the Windows god takes time. With Linux, you have to relearn something new. Being frustrated because you can fly round windows and can't in Linux is like being a snooker professional who is trying to be a top pool player...

    It's a different game ;) you gotta learn to do things a different way :)
  • KwitkoKwitko Sheriff of Banning (Retired) By the thing near the stuff Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    csimon said
    what about Gentoo? ...sorry if this seems ignorant but I don't know a whole lot about linux yet.

    Gentoo is a great distro but tough to install. You compile everything from scratch and can optimize the compiled programs to your architecture. Gentoo takes a loooooong time to install because of that fact. KDE alone can take more than 24 hours. You need a good understanding of how to use command line and how to compile from source. It's certainly not recommended for beginners.

    The payoff is a lean, fast system because you compile only what you want and it's compiled to your architecture.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    TD_Isles said
    csimon said
    The payoff is a lean, fast system because you compile only what you want and it's compiled to your architecture.

    And thats why my server runs it.

    I find Slackware is a nice desktop replacement if you dont want the "all done for you" approach of RH and MDK.

    NS
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited September 2003
    The killer compiler you speak of isn't so killer, at least not for C++. Not that it's super sucky, but it doesn't produce code that is as heavily optimized as Intel's compiler. The price is definitely better, though. :D
  • lightninlightnin
    edited September 2003
    gcc-2.95 and g++ are the compilers you'll want. RH and mandrake both come with broken compilers, don't use them if you want tight code. there is a tradeoff though, because rh and mdk are the easiest to install. debian or gentoo would be the best development platforms ( i use debian ) but are a little tougher to install. never use the stock partitioner for either to resize an ntfs partition though. they will probably damage that partition. also it is best to have windoze installed, then install linux second so the boot records will be written properly. go to www.addaboy.com and check out the review section, i have a write-up of the debian installation prcedure there. it's a little abbreviated, but it'll give you a good idea on how it's done. i suggest using debian over most other linux distributions because it comes stock with gcc2.95 and has the kick-butt apt-get utility. :cool:
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited September 2003
    2.95 produces fine C code but the C++ code is abysmal. GCC 3.3.1 is very much improved, but it still isn't very competitive with Intel's compiler.
    lightnin said
    gcc-2.95 and g++ are the compilers you'll want.
Sign In or Register to comment.