Rajiv Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 I've used redhat/fedora, debian, suse, ubuntu, gentoo, archlinux and many more over the past 10 years or so. Performance-wise, nothing beats gentoo, but is too time-consuming to compile. The gentoo package-manager emerge is pretty decent. But over the past year, I've stuck with archlinux and it's got a kicka$$ package manager called "pacman". No compilation required though the packages are geared ONLY for i686 or x64 machines (hence the better performance than the generic i386 packages that ubuntu provides). Of course gentoo has the best performance as you can compile it with optimizations for your particular machine's architecture. The jury's still out on whether or not the extra compilation optimisations have any effect or if it's just a subjective placebo thing' date=' with Gentoo that is. Do you use X64 / X86 or some other archictecture? I've used Debian on X86 / X64 and PPC. Apart from a few differences in the bootloader for PPC, they're all exactly the same to use. That's the beauty of Debian - uniformity across architectures. Plus the stable distribution is rock-solid. I personally use testing as it's up to date but not as iffy as unstable.[/quote'] ..love it when 2 geeks talk like that. It's almost reaching alien land
varun Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 The jury's still out on whether or not the extra compilation optimisations have any effect or if it's just a subjective placebo thing' date=' with Gentoo that is. Do you use X64 / X86 or some other archictecture? I've used Debian on X86 / X64 and PPC. Apart from a few differences in the bootloader for PPC, they're all exactly the same to use. That's the beauty of Debian - uniformity across architectures. Plus the stable distribution is rock-solid. I personally use testing as it's up to date but not as iffy as unstable.[/quote'] Same machine, ArchLinux performance and general response time >> Ubuntu. I'd be a fool to go through all the hassle to install Arch when Ubuntu is so user friendly ! Btw, I love debian and the apt way too. Was hooked onto it for a long time. Try out arch for yourself sometime and judge for yourself. http://wiki.archlinux.org PS: I use X86 architecture (i686 in particular. All relatively modern CPU's are 686 family as opposed to the generic x86)
maggot_brain Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 Same machine, ArchLinux performance and general response time >> Ubuntu. I'd be a fool to go through all the hassle to install Arch when Ubuntu is so user friendly ! Btw, I love debian and the apt way too. Was hooked onto it for a long time. Try out arch for yourself sometime and judge for yourself. http://wiki.archlinux.org PS: I use X86 architecture (i686 in particular. All relatively modern CPU's are 686 family as opposed to the generic x86) I would try out Arch but why fix it, if it ain't broken? Debian is absolutely fantastic for my needs and I know my way round it inside out. Plus it has an obscene amount of software packages. No reason to change. Only problem I have at the moment is my ATI gfx card. I have to use fglrx which is a pile of shite. When the new open source driver is mature it'll be better. Not using Linux much right now simply cos the X.org drivers are so crap. Crashes X all the time like when switching to the console, and the biggie for me is the video performance is atrocious, watching Xvid movies or DVD is a nightmare!
Guest Hiten. Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 I think Varun and Maggot_brain are just blaberring some random sh*t. Just cuz other ICFers are naive, they think they can make up sh*t. Damn you geeks :mad: :icflove:
maggot_brain Posted January 7, 2008 Posted January 7, 2008 I think Varun and Maggot_brain are just blaberring some random sh*t. Just cuz other ICFers are naive, they think they can make up sh*t. Damn you geeks :mad: :icflove: Don't be daft. None of it's made up.:two_thumbs_up:
Holysmoke Posted March 18, 2008 Posted March 18, 2008 Finally got ubuntu.Its awesome!! Gonna be my primary OS now.
Aditi Posted March 18, 2008 Posted March 18, 2008 I SusE at work....XP Pro at home.... One complaint I do have about Linux is that it almost always crashes my Firefox browser when I attempt to play any Flash-based element (eg. a YouTube video). Does any other Linux user here experience this problem? I think it's got something to do with my xorg.conf settings, but not exactly sure what it might be...:(
living Posted March 18, 2008 Posted March 18, 2008 I had a similar problem .... but it has reduced drastically after my recent upgrade to 7.10 (Ubuntu). Maybe just update?
varun Posted March 18, 2008 Posted March 18, 2008 I SusE at work....XP Pro at home.... One complaint I do have about Linux is that it almost always crashes my Firefox browser when I attempt to play any Flash-based element (eg. a YouTube video). Does any other Linux user here experience this problem? I think it's got something to do with my xorg.conf settings, but not exactly sure what it might be...:( Use the latest flash plugin. (9.0+) Check the current version by typing about:plugins in your address bar
Aditi Posted March 18, 2008 Posted March 18, 2008 Use the latest flash plugin. (9.0+) Check the current version by typing about:plugins in your address bar I am using the latest plugin.... Shockwave Flash 9.0 r115 no luck :((
Holysmoke Posted March 18, 2008 Posted March 18, 2008 I am using the latest plugin.... Shockwave Flash 9.0 r115 no luck :(( does it happen for all flash vids? or just a few ones. Try installing flashblock within ff.
vadodaravictor Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 No. I am Arch-ing, Fedor-ing & Kubuntu-ing
graphic23 Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 I am Ubuntu-ing but am rather disappointed because my ATI card is not supported well enough to support hibernate and suspend.
THX_1138 Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 But I really really like vista :O yeah and i love it up the arse... get real. you hate vista.
CC1981 Posted March 20, 2008 Author Posted March 20, 2008 vista is the definition of 'dire' in my books. Ofcourse, the definition of 'traumatic' is WinME.
Holysmoke Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 meh. I still like vista. Ubuntu is great too. I've got a dual boot on my laptop. Vista and ubuntu. I use ubuntu most of the time.
CC1981 Posted March 20, 2008 Author Posted March 20, 2008 well if you are smart, logical and have a bit of commonsense, i don't see why you'd not use ubuntu most of the time over winblowz....the only time i use winblowz is for gaming- now if only the gaming industry could make games for ubuntu, i'd feel relieved tossing my winXP/win2K disks into the trashcan.
living Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Actually there are reasons for using Windows. For example battery life on laptops, most distros do this annoying thing where they keep logging and keep writing to your HDD - therefore eating up precious battery life. Ubuntu is great, and I use it - however XP/VISTA have their pluses too.
Recommended Posts