NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Linux & Other OS's › Best linux distro for college?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best linux distro for college? - Page 2

post #21 of 59
I find it interesting that people think you need to use distros like gentoo and slackware to be an advanced user... You can do serious CS work in Linspire if you choose. (acruxksa, I know your post was tongue-in-cheek)

Gentoo is a great distro to learn some basics on, but it's ill-suited as one's primary desktop machine- it's just too much work to get the things that ubuntu does out of the box. It's really only good for servers and production machines (audio/video workstation, DVR, etc).

The most useful things I learned in gentoo was how grub worked. Previously, whenever the mbr got screwed up i'd have to reformat. Once you get past setting up the default system in gentoo it becomes much less useful as a linux learning tool. You ultimately spend more time learning gentoo centric things. Things like rcupdate and the genkernel will confuse you on other distros.
post #22 of 59
I use Fedora Core 5 and FreeBSD 6.1. Doesn't matter how far you go, you'll find a seriously large common denominator between all of them. It's by design

pick one, and if you don't like it, choose another one. you learn when you try for yourself, not when you do what someone else tells you
post #23 of 59
lets make it clear.....bsd is NOT linux. although i have respect for bsd as a server....it lacks serious hardware support to make it in the desktop computing world.

that said, as somebody who tried every distro you ever thought of on distrowatch...i feel i am fairly well qualified to sum things up, and save other members of this forum LOTS of cd-r.

i agree with you totally that you will not know for sure until you find what you like.... but when it comes down to a working distro (ubuntu) vs a buggy distro (mepis) vs a bloated broken distro (suse).....advice can be given....
post #24 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtrouble77
genkernel will confuse you on other distros.

Nobody really uses genkernel, do they? Really? Egads!
post #25 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronjb
Nobody really uses genkernel, do they? Really? Egads!

Actually yes I do. Just because you use the genkernel script doenst mean you still cant get just as much customization out of your kernel. The only real thing it does is make you use an initrd, which half the people would be doing anyways

The genkernel scripts accepts flags to allow you to access for example menuconfig etc to custsomize the kernel just the same as normal.

Seablade
post #26 of 59
i like genernel --menuconfig as well......
post #27 of 59
Well now I just think I must be missing something

What does genkernel get you that a straight kernel compile doesn't? Perhaps it's evolved since the last time I used it (a long time ago)..

Or does it just make it easier to get the pretty splash screens to work (which I hate, so not having them suited me fine ) because it forces you to use an initrd?
post #28 of 59
splashscreens is part of the genkernel equation.....some other mods too
post #29 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronjb
Well now I just think I must be missing something What does genkernel get you that a straight kernel compile doesn't? Perhaps it's evolved since the last time I used it (a long time ago).. Or does it just make it easier to get the pretty splash screens to work (which I hate, so not having them suited me fine ) because it forces you to use an initrd?
genkernel --oldconfig --menuconfig --bootloader=grub I BELIEVE that is the command I use, I have to check on the last one due to the fact I dont have it in front of me right now to look up. I also have to confirm the --old-config but I believe that is correct as well, worst case scenario it starts you off with a generic kernel to customize. What this does is starts you off with either a generic kernel(If old-config doesnt work or doesnt exist) and put you into the menu-config to customize it. Then when you are done customizing, it makes the kernel, installs it, and sets up the initrd for it, as well as configuring grub for all of the above. Essentially it automates the steps I would take in most of my installs anyways without genkernel. Seablade EDIT: Did a quick google for this page... http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/genkernel.xml For whatever reason the bootloader flag isnt on there, but I am certain that one existed(In fact in some old threads you will probably find a copy and paste of the command I used including the bootloader flag on these forums)
post #30 of 59
Linus is so weak,

BSD is a monster, it just doesnt baby you like Linux does.
post #31 of 59
you n3wb...did you have to resurect a month old thread?

and linux ftw! ... it has better hardware support...so why not use it
post #32 of 59
Well lets see, firstly what does Linus's strength have to do with how good of an OS it is or BSD being better?

Secondly so far you have either posted incorrect information and accussed others of being stupid, or have given little to back up your position. While I have absolutely no problem with BSD(And actually neither does ABF I dont believe), you might really want to learn how to support your position.

Seablade
post #33 of 59
And thats funny as when I started typing I didnt realise ABF had posted... all the better

Seablade

PS ABF he ressurected an old thread he had already posted in actually...
post #34 of 59
i have nothing agianst BSD...in fact i am planning to learn it later. I think FreeBSD has a good potential as a server, and PC-BSD is a fantastic..ran it for a little bit. But currently I think linux is best simply because of better hardware support (read:ATI fglrx), a larger community (see ubuntu and gentoo forums) and i personally think linux text commands are easier...
post #35 of 59
Ahh BSD vs. Linux - it's almost as old as the Apple vs. Windows war, or the Amiga vs. Atari war (that one was fun back in the day )

We use both extensively at work - our earlier generation products were based on BSD, while our later generation products are based on Linux and Embedded Linux (I was wrong in that other thread - it's a 32Mb flash that's half full, not 64Mb).

ISTR that Linux's IPv6 support is more mature than BSD's now. Other than that the two have borrowed so much from one another - I mean, guess where the Ethernet stack in Linux came from?

Knowledge transfers pretty easily between the two, too - the main thing to remember is where the various file layouts differ, other than that the main commands are the same or at least similar.

If I wanted a server (on vanilla hardware) that I could setup and forget, I'd likely choose BSD.
If I wanted a server on esoteric hardware or with easy IPv6 support I'd go for GNU/Linux with a 2.6 series kernel.
If I wanted a desktop - GNU/Linux, no contest.
post #36 of 59
pc-bsd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #37 of 59
post #38 of 59
I think AaronJB Tackled it best from what I have seen of those that use both on a regular basis, matches that completely.

The choice of BSD vs Linux on a vanilla server does typically go to BSD. However Linux also has its fair share as well, particularly with the LAMP stack, or setting up beowulf clusters I believe as well.

But on the desktop I gotta agree, Linux is the better choice for most people at the moment unless going with something based off BSD on dedicated hardware it was built for(Aka Mac OS X

Seablade
post #39 of 59
my question with linux is how many partitions do i need. because i have a dell e1505 with media drirect. also could i boot linux off of my maxtor one touch external?
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronjb
Ahh BSD vs. Linux - it's almost as old as the Apple vs. Windows war, or the Amiga vs. Atari war (that one was fun back in the day )

We use both extensively at work - our earlier generation products were based on BSD, while our later generation products are based on Linux and Embedded Linux (I was wrong in that other thread - it's a 32Mb flash that's half full, not 64Mb).

ISTR that Linux's IPv6 support is more mature than BSD's now. Other than that the two have borrowed so much from one another - I mean, guess where the Ethernet stack in Linux came from?

Knowledge transfers pretty easily between the two, too - the main thing to remember is where the various file layouts differ, other than that the main commands are the same or at least similar.

If I wanted a server (on vanilla hardware) that I could setup and forget, I'd likely choose BSD.
If I wanted a server on esoteric hardware or with easy IPv6 support I'd go for GNU/Linux with a 2.6 series kernel.
If I wanted a desktop - GNU/Linux, no contest.


Linux does not use BSD stacks, BSD is know for the horrible stacks, which is why there horrible for intensive network situations


Linux has pretty much borrowed from Unix, but there was never a need for vice versa, possibly just the support for Linux binaires, but even then BSD runs then fine.


The whole hardware support this is bogus, whicle yes the support may not be there, anybody with a decent understanding could manipulate any driver for bsd. If you need something why not make it yourself. I did for my ATI vid card on bsd. Its not that hard.


I mean Linux is fine, but your complaint that BSD is harder, proves the fact that Linux babies its users. You should not be using the system if you could not Configure x.org


Im just a huge bsd supporter, and also a supporter of people learning the hard way.


But Il never change, may be stubborn, but Ive always loved and used BSD. Theres a reason why corporations like yahoo, Microsoft and Google use BSD based systems for there Up most Critical tasks.

up most critical means just that.




Solaris is hot shit also.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Linux & Other OS's
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Linux & Other OS's › Best linux distro for college?