F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems what is the best linux

what is the best linux

what is the best linux

Pages (2): Previous 1 2
K
kip1113
Member
129
07-03-2016, 08:46 PM
#11
Specs?
K
kip1113
07-03-2016, 08:46 PM #11

Specs?

A
Abbatia17
Member
51
07-03-2016, 10:06 PM
#12
Not to spark a debate over this, but again—it only highlights how users are drawn to specific distros. It reflects the general online opinion, though it might not always be accurate. For instance, Arch Linux stands out with many entries because it has a large and active community that strongly supports it. Still, it’s good to know it helped nonetheless.
A
Abbatia17
07-03-2016, 10:06 PM #12

Not to spark a debate over this, but again—it only highlights how users are drawn to specific distros. It reflects the general online opinion, though it might not always be accurate. For instance, Arch Linux stands out with many entries because it has a large and active community that strongly supports it. Still, it’s good to know it helped nonetheless.

M
MrCarlNL
Member
57
07-04-2016, 06:30 AM
#13
Indeed. Distro Watch is not at all a good website to gauge popularity let alone "what is best". It is and always has been a "just for fun" metric, not really based on any reliable data. As you've pointed out it's pretty easy to, albeit anecdotally, come to a reasonable conclusion that Arch would be far more popular than something like ZorinOS, even though the latter is much higher up. CachyOS would also most likely end up significantly lower down the list in practice, even though it shows up at the top. I would second this. OP should bear in mind that Linux distros, overall, are far more similar than they are different and the reality is that for the most part it really doesn't matter. Choices often come down to choices of package management, update cadence, and philosophical stance (e.g. FLOSS-only 1st party packages or inclusion of patent encumbered software). Gentoo is perhaps an exception as it takes a very different approach to packaging, but such exceptions are generally few and far between. It's not the whole story, of course, otherwise there wouldn't be so many but from a day-to-day user's perspective these are the most significant differences. In other words, any modern distro should work just fine on reasonably modern hardware. One can't go [too] wrong with any well known distros - Fedora, Mint, Arch, Gentoo (steep but rewarding learning curve), and maybe even Ubuntu (and its variants) are all good choices. Debian too, if you're happy with the slow 2-yearly release cycle. Some distros are de facto the same and should not even be considered separate, e.g. Kubuntu, Lubuntu, and Xubuntu are all the exact same Ubuntu with a different default desktop selection. Same with Fedora and most of its "spins".
M
MrCarlNL
07-04-2016, 06:30 AM #13

Indeed. Distro Watch is not at all a good website to gauge popularity let alone "what is best". It is and always has been a "just for fun" metric, not really based on any reliable data. As you've pointed out it's pretty easy to, albeit anecdotally, come to a reasonable conclusion that Arch would be far more popular than something like ZorinOS, even though the latter is much higher up. CachyOS would also most likely end up significantly lower down the list in practice, even though it shows up at the top. I would second this. OP should bear in mind that Linux distros, overall, are far more similar than they are different and the reality is that for the most part it really doesn't matter. Choices often come down to choices of package management, update cadence, and philosophical stance (e.g. FLOSS-only 1st party packages or inclusion of patent encumbered software). Gentoo is perhaps an exception as it takes a very different approach to packaging, but such exceptions are generally few and far between. It's not the whole story, of course, otherwise there wouldn't be so many but from a day-to-day user's perspective these are the most significant differences. In other words, any modern distro should work just fine on reasonably modern hardware. One can't go [too] wrong with any well known distros - Fedora, Mint, Arch, Gentoo (steep but rewarding learning curve), and maybe even Ubuntu (and its variants) are all good choices. Debian too, if you're happy with the slow 2-yearly release cycle. Some distros are de facto the same and should not even be considered separate, e.g. Kubuntu, Lubuntu, and Xubuntu are all the exact same Ubuntu with a different default desktop selection. Same with Fedora and most of its "spins".

J
Jensboy12
Member
50
07-11-2016, 04:54 PM
#14
Linux is phasing out many 32-bit platforms, making OpenBSD or NetBSD potentially more durable (longer lifespan).
J
Jensboy12
07-11-2016, 04:54 PM #14

Linux is phasing out many 32-bit platforms, making OpenBSD or NetBSD potentially more durable (longer lifespan).

J
Jan_Damz
Member
180
07-12-2016, 12:17 AM
#15
Linux still doesn’t fully retire 32-bit x86 support, though some distributions have done so. Considering both hardware and software aspects matters. For hardware, choosing a distro that maintains 32-bit or BSD compatibility makes sense with older hardware. Software, however, is more about available packages and libraries. 32-bit binaries remain accessible on Debian amd64, and running them on a modern 64-bit system works fine. Regarding games, many include 32-bit libraries in their runtime (like Steam or Flatpak), so they should function normally. For software dependent on distro-specific tools, compatibility might be affected. It’s hard to predict exactly how long these 32-bit libraries will be maintained by different maintainers. Ultimately, it seems some distros may retain 32-bit support for a while, while others could introduce new versions with 32-bit options.
J
Jan_Damz
07-12-2016, 12:17 AM #15

Linux still doesn’t fully retire 32-bit x86 support, though some distributions have done so. Considering both hardware and software aspects matters. For hardware, choosing a distro that maintains 32-bit or BSD compatibility makes sense with older hardware. Software, however, is more about available packages and libraries. 32-bit binaries remain accessible on Debian amd64, and running them on a modern 64-bit system works fine. Regarding games, many include 32-bit libraries in their runtime (like Steam or Flatpak), so they should function normally. For software dependent on distro-specific tools, compatibility might be affected. It’s hard to predict exactly how long these 32-bit libraries will be maintained by different maintainers. Ultimately, it seems some distros may retain 32-bit support for a while, while others could introduce new versions with 32-bit options.

Pages (2): Previous 1 2