I'm looking to switch distros again and I'm not sure what to look to or if maybe I should try something new. I'm looking for something that's simple, builds up from a minimal install, but isn't SO minimal that I have to tweak settings just to install new packages. It has to have a version for amd64. I don't mind if I have to compile some things from source since I end up with that on any distro for some things, but it'd be nice if I can install JOE or Nano right off the bat so I don't have to suffer with vi. Arch and Debian are the best things I've tried, but I have certain beefs with both of them, as described below.
Stuff I've tried in the past:
Ubuntu - It's one of those things that's nice at first and starts getting in the way after a while, plus it installs by default a bunch of shit I don't want (pulse audio, their crappy media players, etc.) I don't like the apt package system either.
Debian - Nicer that Ubuntu in that you can build it up from a more basic install, but still apt based and I run into problems with their stuff's outdatedness and/or non-standard patching sooner or later.
GNewSense - Pretty much everything that sucks about Ubuntu with none of the advantages. Blech.
Mint - See Ubuntu as it's pretty much just a minorly tweaked version thereof.
Arch - I really liked this one at first, but after a few months my install of it had become more unstable than the time I had Windows ME, no exaggeration. Maybe this is atypical but it's kind of put me off to going back to it so far. I really like their package manager though.
Dyne:Bolic - Cute as an interest piece, but for actually using? No thanks. Also, running everything with root priveleges? Heh.
BlueWhite, Fedora - Both of these had similar graphical issues as I recall, not fatal, but annoying enough to make me not care for them much.
OpenBSD - Very technical setup, kind of hit or miss with hardware, but otherwise mostly decent. It seems like you have to burn a whole new CD for each new version though instead of a net upgrade, which it kind of offputting (I can't use USB installs because it screws up the hard drive numbers so that the boot loader won't boot right afterwards)
Given that, what do you think I'd like? Should I go back to Arch? Debian? Something else that might be better?
freebsd.
Have you tried using FEDORA? I prefer fedora than ubuntu..
>>2
Gave it a try, looked promising from the install, but gave up on trying to get keyboard and mouse to respond in X after the first couple of pages I Googled up on Lynx didn't help.
>>3
Yeah, I still had the disc I'd burned before and everything. Gave it another try since it was recommended, had a little trouble getting sound set up the way I wanted it but now it's working out so far. No sign of the weird graphical glitchiness I remembered... maybe I was thinking of some other distro or it was on my other comp. Thanks.
> Gave it a try, looked promising from the install, but gave up on trying to get keyboard and mouse to respond in X after the first couple of pages I Googled up on Lynx didn't help.
really? last time i installed freebsd i didn't have any trouble... i just installed[1] and configured[2] X, installed KDE[3], then set up KDM[4]. everything just worked.
You are complaining for naught.
What's wrong with Ubuntu/Mint? It installs shit you don't want? Then uninstall that shit!
Who cares about he initial package set if you can configure it later? Ubuntu/Mint have excellent hardware support, from there you can remove shit like crazy.
While I hate things I don't want in my box, I love things I wanted but didn't know I did. Like Bluetooth support, plug dongle, it works, didn't had to Google for shit since Ubuntu did it for me.
So I learned to stop complaining about bloat, rather uninstall only when you KNOW you don't want it.
What's wrong with apt? Too easy to admin?
If you want a rolling distro that's always updated go debian sid, if you irrationally hate apt or want to try a BSD style distro with the hardware support of Linux, go Gentoo, if you want Gentoo for sane users go Sabayon.
IMO if you aren't going to build a special use device there's no point in Linux from scratch.
> What's wrong with Ubuntu/Mint?
define ``support''. there's always a hack.
shitty package management? what? i could show you bash one liners that resolve that problem.
full of security vulns? maybe, but at least they get fixed quick
use slackware, or LFS. i personally highly recommend a variant of LFS.
Have you tried Damn Small Linux? It's a bit outdated but it's nice for slower PCs like my own.
I haven't tried it lately, but FreeBSD or PC-BSD might suit you. As an OpenBSD user, some comments:
> Very technical setup
It can be off-putting at first, but recent releases are much better. As a test, I was able to do a full install of 4.6 in under seven minutes on my old Sempron laptop, by going with the defaults. But if you insist on dual-booting with another OS, yes, it's much more difficult.
> kind of hit or miss with hardware
True, but there are continual improvements. My wireless card's support for WPA2 was flaky with 4.6, but it's flawless now with the current 4.7 release. Also, no dicking around wpa_supplicant--you can enter your access point's name and password with ifconfig pretty much as you would with WEP, and it works fine.
> It seems like you have to burn a whole new CD for each new
> version though instead of a net upgrade, which it kind of
> offputting (I can't use USB installs because it screws up the
> hard drive numbers so that the boot loader won't boot right
> afterwards)
Updating (installing patches) is a hassle as there's no binary method like "apt-get update", it's strictly source-only. But you can definitely upgrade to newer releases via the net, using the bsd.rd kernel (check the FAQ). When 4.8 is released, I just have to FTP bsd.rd off an FTP server, boot off of it, and run the upgrade.
anonix
> Updating (installing patches) is a hassle as there's no binary method like "apt-get update", it's strictly source-only.
there is for freebsd... freebsd-update for updating freebsd itself and portmaster -P for ports and packages.
> define ``support''. there's always a hack.
It works, without any mucking about with Windows drivers.
> shitty package management? what? i could show you bash one liners that resolve that problem.
Show me one for this:
Package A is installed. The currently installed version of package A depends on package B. There is an updated version of package A, which depends on package C, and not on package B. Package B and package C conflict with each other. dpkg and apt won't work without package A installed. Upgrade to the newer version of package A.
> full of security vulns? maybe, but at least they get fixed quick
I know of at least two that have been around since 1998.