FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What is the fastest, most fnctional and pretty Linux distro?





ratanegra
I have tried Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint and Fedora and from those, the fastest was Xubuntu, but it was not pretty at all, and the nicest (aesthetically speaking) was Ubuntu. Linux Mint is kinda pretty and fast, but I'm not sure that it is the most functional. I like it, though, but I don't know if there are any other Linux distros that I should try to see if they meet my criteria.

What do you think? What's the fastest, most functional and aesthetical Linux distro that you have tried up to now?
Marcuzzo
ratanegra wrote:
I have tried Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint and Fedora and from those, the fastest was Xubuntu, but it was not pretty at all, and the nicest (aesthetically speaking) was Ubuntu. Linux Mint is kinda pretty and fast, but I'm not sure that it is the most functional. I like it, though, but I don't know if there are any other Linux distros that I should try to see if they meet my criteria.

What do you think? What's the fastest, most functional and aesthetical Linux distro that you have tried up to now?


apart from Fedora these are all Ubuntu based distros which in his turn is a Debian based distro.

- Xubuntu is just ubuntu but with Xfce as Desktop environment
- Linux Mint is just a cheap Ubuntu rip-off if you ask me
- no experience with Fedora.


personally I would choose Debian over every Distro, but if you want something fast I would advise SliTaz, or Slax
moncong
nice information guys..
thanks
ratanegra
Marcuzzo wrote:
personally I would choose Debian over every Distro


Is Debian a distro? All I've seen of Debian is the ones I mentioned before, and I tried searching for more things related but I didn't find anything. And what other operative systems do you know that are based on Debian?
johans
Marcuzzo wrote:
ratanegra wrote:
I have tried Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint and Fedora and from those, the fastest was Xubuntu, but it was not pretty at all, and the nicest (aesthetically speaking) was Ubuntu. Linux Mint is kinda pretty and fast, but I'm not sure that it is the most functional. I like it, though, but I don't know if there are any other Linux distros that I should try to see if they meet my criteria.

What do you think? What's the fastest, most functional and aesthetical Linux distro that you have tried up to now?


apart from Fedora these are all Ubuntu based distros which in his turn is a Debian based distro.

- Xubuntu is just ubuntu but with Xfce as Desktop environment
- Linux Mint is just a cheap Ubuntu rip-off if you ask me
- no experience with Fedora.


personally I would choose Debian over every Distro, but if you want something fast I would advise SliTaz, or Slax


Now i learned something in other operating system here.. nice post guys.
Marcuzzo
ratanegra wrote:
Marcuzzo wrote:
personally I would choose Debian over every Distro


Is Debian a distro? All I've seen of Debian is the ones I mentioned before, and I tried searching for more things related but I didn't find anything. And what other operative systems do you know that are based on Debian?



just as information, don't take it the wrong way if you already know this information.

Linux is not really an OS but a kernel ( also see here ) which is an open source project that was started and still maintained by Linus Torvalds and the contributors of the project.

the Distro's or Distributions are Operating systems that are built on top of this Kernel.

just like slackware and Red hat, Debian is actualy one of the (If not the biggest) major distributions on which several distributions are bases off of.


to give you an idea


Edit: so you can also see that Fedora is based on Red Hat linux
riteshk1
I used Linux Mint which is based on Ubuntu or Debian. It is elegant comfortable operating system
harrer
I would recommend Linux Mint LTS with Cinnamon as a good balance of speed, productivity and beauty.
fastData
I would recommend Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop) as a desktop OS and CentOS (http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/6/isos/x86_64/) as a server OS.
badai
this is for desktop, not server: i've been using few linux distros and bsd since 1997 (both experimenting on my own and forced to used it at work). my opinion? nothing beat Microsoft Windows. not even close.

it just a friction of the cost of your computer, why bother struggling and wasting time?
jajarvin
badai wrote:
it just a friction of the cost of your computer, why bother struggling and wasting time?


Linux is open source and free , Windows is not open source and not free.
To me this is the main reason to use Linux.
Linux is also updated more often than WIndows.
Marcuzzo
jajarvin wrote:
badai wrote:
it just a friction of the cost of your computer, why bother struggling and wasting time?


Linux is open source and free , Windows is not open source and not free.
To me this is the main reason to use Linux.
Linux is also updated more often than WIndows.


see, that's where you are wrong and I know you know jack about either windows and linux.

Like I said before, linux is a kernel and the communities/groups/companies that create these distro's Compile their kernel of choice and build their OS on top of it.

Microsoft has this thing not many people know about ( unless you're a systems administrator, and no I don't work for microsoft ) called patch tuesday read the article...

besides, who cares about regular updates, you want things to be stable in a production environment and not bleeding edge, because if shtf the blood on that edge of the knife is coming out of the system administrators arse.

I agree with badai, I've had more or less the same experience and I can guarantee you that you are more likely to run into trouble (especially if you are not a linux expert) with linux then with windows.

to give you an example: I've seen more kernel panics in my life then blue screens.

it's easy for people to judge something when they don't even have the slightest clue.

I dare anybody here to give me 1 concrete example/situation with proof which they experienced themselves with a windows machine that made them 'believe' it was the fault of windows and not just a bad case of pebcak.

and when I say proof I mean proof, minidumps, windows eventlog entries, the works and then I'll eat my shoe, but untill then do me a favor and sthu about this stuff because it p***ses me off
Possum
Puppy is the fastest. And does 95% what I need. But that 5% is important too..

But I would imagine KolibriOS would be the fastest
loveandormoney
ratanegra wrote:
I have tried Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint and Fedora and from those, the fastest was Xubuntu, but it was not pretty at all, and the nicest (aesthetically speaking) was Ubuntu. Linux Mint is kinda pretty and fast, but I'm not sure that it is the most functional. I like it, though, but I don't know if there are any other Linux distros that I should try to see if they meet my criteria.

What do you think? What's the fastest, most functional and aesthetical Linux distro that you have tried up to now?



Arch.


Its a fast bicycle
but do You like
car then Xubuntu is best.

For relax Linux not first Distro: Debian.
Arrogant
Just migrated from Ubuntu to Archlinux with i3 as window manager.
Takes up about 160MB of RAM and boots pretty quick.
The Arch community and documentations are also very good.
Blummer
Interesting, I've read many positive reviews about elementary OS, though I can say, I've seen it in action and it's quite a pretty one and quite a high rated, but it's still in the early stages and the updates are not too frequent.
BigGeek
You know I agree with "Marcuzzo" - I am pretty good with Linux but no Guru to say the least. I also run Windows and have been certified by Microsoft as an MCSE. Windows is easy to load, easy to get applications for, and fairly easy to maintain and run, plus most people are used to it and typical novices can use your PC.

Linux on the other hand is difficult, for example loading drivers - where in Windows this is fairly straight forward, installing them in Linux means navigating directories, you need root authority to write to many of them, and many things have to be edited with the vi editor. It is not as straight forward as Windows and takes some time and a learning curve just to get drivers loaded.

Loading software can be difficult as well, and something as simple as creating a short cut on your desktop can be difficult in Linux.

I have an Ubuntu desktop at home and it took me some time to get it up and running with drivers and applications. My Windows 7 box had problems and I changed out the hard drive and reloaded it from scratch in about 3 hours including applications, drivers, and all.

So yes Linux is free and most applications are free, and if you are into learning and growing you knowledge then Linux is the way to go, if you are a novice user that just wants a PC to function then Windows is the way to go!

Just my 2 cents on the subject!
loveandormoney
Does Marcuzzo also accept Pentium I or Pentium II or Pentium III?
Related topics
own linux distro
Windows to Linux ( Vice Versa )
Best Online Linux Tutor for Beginners/Newbies
For very old computer: which linux distro to use?
How can I make a linux partition just using Disk Managment.
Which Linux distribution is the best?
Check this to find the right linux distro
Freespire- The new Linux distro from the Linspire stable
Hard disk PATA? SATA? IDE? ATA133, 100?
Linux Distro that is very similar with Windows XP
Linux distro comparison (Fedora vs. Mandriva vs. OpenSuse)
Linux distro comparison (Fedora vs. Mandriva vs. OpenSuse)
Which distro of Linux is best for a laptop?
netbook liefst zonder OS of met een linux distro
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.