Re: Which distro do you run and why?
I just wrote a nice, long post which got rejected because AndroidForums said the token expired. Grrr... So, I'm going to try this again.
I think the biggest hurdle in actuality for the potential new user of GNU/Linux is that GNU/Linux has become as much about what in the horse, cat, or dog show world is called "pedigree" as it is about the idea of being open-source. It isn't that this is a weakness, per se, but it just adds an extra layer of confusion to an already complex subject.
In the beginning, you had Richard Stallman and his GNU Project folks, and on the other hand you had Linus Torvalds, who wrote the Linux kernel (Linux being a play on his own name of Linus, and only intended as a temporary name, but it stuck). These folks, and many others who came along after, contributed to creating what one can think of as the "GNU/Linux environment/platform/etc." and it is, to put it crudely, from this that any copy of this operating system you might choose to use comes from.
I would ask that the new, potential user of GNU/Linux understand something: at its heart, this operating system is "by geeks, for geeks" and that ultimately it was never designed to be a "user friendly" operating system, at least not in the modern, conventional sense. So, to the extent that you can get GNU/Linux without per se having it be from some organization like LinuxMint or Canonical or Fedora Project, you wouldn't want to do this unless you are a hard-core, experienced coder. Trust me.
Distributions like Debian, or openSuSE, or Slackware, or LinuxMint, exist for two basic categories of reason. The first is that they wanted to take GNU/Linux and have some control over how it is assembled, either because they wanted certain software packages or certain versions of software packages included, or they wanted to make a more stable product, or they wanted it to be more optimized for some particular use, or what-have-you.
As these groups set to work to, in a sense, make GNU/Linux in their own image, they created what we today call "distributions" or "distros". When you D/L Debian, or openSuSE, or Fedora, or LinuxMint, or a hundred others, you are downloading a "distribution" of GNU/Linux.
"Back in the day" the distributions all just took the raw materials of GNU/Linux and rolled their own copy. However, what has happened over time is that process evolved. Certain groups who did this work became more established, respected, accumulated numerous supporters and users, etc. Ultimately, these distros won out over others. And what's happened since that time is that most distributions are actually based off of these parent distributions, or distributions which are based off of them. This is where my initial comment about "the pedigree of GNU/Linux" at the top of this post comes from.
I choose to use LinuxMint. LinuxMint is actually based on Ubuntu, with changes made to it which suit their own ends (like not using Unity, providing MATE and Cinnamon, etc.) but still benefitting from the many things Canonical did right with Ubuntu. And then, Ubuntu is itself based on Debian, which is good and solid and known for being very stable, if somewhat not-so-polished and not-so-up-to-date.
Fedora, for example, is based on RedHat.
openSuSE is (or at least was) based on RedHat as well.
CrunchBang, which is designed specifically to be a VERY minimalistic distro, is Debian-based.
And so it goes...
I apologize to anyone here who, reading this post, is still left feeling a bit perplexed, confused, or overwhelmed. All I can tell you is that at least you now have enough information to start asking useful GNU/Linux-related questions, the answers to which will hopefully help lead you to one (or more) distros to play with, which in turn will help you pick something to use that best suits your needs and/or tastes.
I just wrote a nice, long post which got rejected because AndroidForums said the token expired. Grrr... So, I'm going to try this again.
I think the biggest hurdle in actuality for the potential new user of GNU/Linux is that GNU/Linux has become as much about what in the horse, cat, or dog show world is called "pedigree" as it is about the idea of being open-source. It isn't that this is a weakness, per se, but it just adds an extra layer of confusion to an already complex subject.
In the beginning, you had Richard Stallman and his GNU Project folks, and on the other hand you had Linus Torvalds, who wrote the Linux kernel (Linux being a play on his own name of Linus, and only intended as a temporary name, but it stuck). These folks, and many others who came along after, contributed to creating what one can think of as the "GNU/Linux environment/platform/etc." and it is, to put it crudely, from this that any copy of this operating system you might choose to use comes from.
I would ask that the new, potential user of GNU/Linux understand something: at its heart, this operating system is "by geeks, for geeks" and that ultimately it was never designed to be a "user friendly" operating system, at least not in the modern, conventional sense. So, to the extent that you can get GNU/Linux without per se having it be from some organization like LinuxMint or Canonical or Fedora Project, you wouldn't want to do this unless you are a hard-core, experienced coder. Trust me.
Distributions like Debian, or openSuSE, or Slackware, or LinuxMint, exist for two basic categories of reason. The first is that they wanted to take GNU/Linux and have some control over how it is assembled, either because they wanted certain software packages or certain versions of software packages included, or they wanted to make a more stable product, or they wanted it to be more optimized for some particular use, or what-have-you.
As these groups set to work to, in a sense, make GNU/Linux in their own image, they created what we today call "distributions" or "distros". When you D/L Debian, or openSuSE, or Fedora, or LinuxMint, or a hundred others, you are downloading a "distribution" of GNU/Linux.
"Back in the day" the distributions all just took the raw materials of GNU/Linux and rolled their own copy. However, what has happened over time is that process evolved. Certain groups who did this work became more established, respected, accumulated numerous supporters and users, etc. Ultimately, these distros won out over others. And what's happened since that time is that most distributions are actually based off of these parent distributions, or distributions which are based off of them. This is where my initial comment about "the pedigree of GNU/Linux" at the top of this post comes from.
I choose to use LinuxMint. LinuxMint is actually based on Ubuntu, with changes made to it which suit their own ends (like not using Unity, providing MATE and Cinnamon, etc.) but still benefitting from the many things Canonical did right with Ubuntu. And then, Ubuntu is itself based on Debian, which is good and solid and known for being very stable, if somewhat not-so-polished and not-so-up-to-date.
Fedora, for example, is based on RedHat.
openSuSE is (or at least was) based on RedHat as well.
CrunchBang, which is designed specifically to be a VERY minimalistic distro, is Debian-based.
And so it goes...
I apologize to anyone here who, reading this post, is still left feeling a bit perplexed, confused, or overwhelmed. All I can tell you is that at least you now have enough information to start asking useful GNU/Linux-related questions, the answers to which will hopefully help lead you to one (or more) distros to play with, which in turn will help you pick something to use that best suits your needs and/or tastes.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram