The Best Linux Distros of 2016
linux.com
linux.com
Just download your configuration.nix (and dotfiles) on another machine and you're pretty much safe.
Maybe, two configurations that can be run on one machine to transform the machine then?
I don't understand how Mint is better than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a total OS X replacement for me (I'm a full stack dev). The only reason I see to use Mint is if you prefer traditional desktop interfaces over more modern ones.
>If you are looking at running a server, but you can’t afford or don’t want to pay a subscription fee for RHEL or SLE, then there is nothing better than Debian or CentOS. These distributions are the gold standard when it comes to community-based servers. And, they are supported for a very long time, so you won’t have to worry about upgrading your system so often.
I've been really satisfied with Ubuntu server, it just works. Debian isn't bad but I find it takes more configuration than Ubuntu. I use Ubuntu on my home server to run containers which I remotely connect to and use as development environments. I've found that Ubuntu seems to have the best out of the box support for lxc-containers so I have no reason to move away from it.
No, for many of us it is not about modern.
I love modern. Ubuntus problem is they copied a bunch of Mac-isms for what seems to be no good reason.
Now hear me out: I almost love Apple, I just cannot get myself to use their products (OK, did, three years, was happy to get a PC again) and there are a lot of things that should be learned from Mac. Out-of-the-box experience etc.
Other Mac-isms are just bad IMO like inconsistent keyboard shortcuts, Alt-Tab that is not a consistent stack etc.
Ubuntu copied the dock, moved Window control to the left, messed with the menus and Alt-Tab all while delivering a less impressing OOTB experience (IIRC).
There is a very good reason for the direction Ubuntu went with Unity. The clue is in the name.
The Unity interface is the way it is because it's designed to work on both large screen devices and small screen devices, and with mouse and keyboard and touchscreens. Take a look at the Ubuntu Touch interface, notice how similar it is to the UI on desktop Ubuntu (side menu, scopes, etc...)?
Going back to Unity, whilst I have only used it in passing, based on that experience I can't think of a feature that I'd miss from a more 'traditional' desktop interface. The only minor things I found jarring were the online search results in desktop search (which I believe has been disabled in 16.04) and a slightly clunky look to the search results (which is just an implementation detail, could be something that is refined in the future). Is there something you'd want from Unity that it doesn't currently offer?
FWIW, I think the Windows 8 desktop interface was a mistake. There was too much hidden away. It also didn't feel cohesive to me (the jump from metro to desktop and vice versa was too jarring IMO). Metro works really well as a phone UI though (I'm using it now, I think its greatest strength is probably the speed of navigation through the interface).
It's also, IMHO, ugly as heck out of the box.
It's strange to look back. It's both good and bad. Qubes OS is the one OS I might tinker with in the near future but other than that I'm a consumer now.
The "bleeding edge" thing might be a turn-off for some, though. I've only had Korora (a Fedora spin with some pre-loaded apps and themes) for less than a month and I've already downloaded two kernel updates.
I agree with you though. I got fed up with Ubuntu and switched over to Fedora a few months ago and have been pleasantly surprised at how well it works now. The Fedora team is even willing to fix stupid obvious bugs so I actually have my zsh manpages now and gmplayer works.
I like the idea, I just haven't taken time to go back and try again since then, and other distros have stepped up so I didn't have to either.
Maybe the author has had similar experiences that might have affected the choices?
yum (now dnf, which is a name I hate) is also my favorite of the mainstream package managers. It nearly perfectly balances ease of use with advanced capabilities, and maintaining private repos is an absolute dream (stick signed packages in a directory on a web server, run createrepo; repository is done!), compared to anything else. apt is a great, but managing repos for it is just awful (though I haven't had a chance to try aptly, which appears to potentially resolve this issue, though it still seems to be vastly more complex than createrepo).
So, yeah, Fedora remains my favorite, through many years and many attempts using other distros. I've flirted with Ubuntu a few times, going so far as having it as my primary laptop OS for a while. Partly it was because of the popularity of it; it's sometimes easier to install stuff on Ubuntu because the developers are more likely to be using Ubuntu. But, it's not worth the other trade offs, to me.
Also, I like that Fedora ships a close to stock, very clean, version of the most recent Gnome desktop. It feels very nicely integrated, while some of the alternative desktop variants feel bolted together from different pieces. Lots of folks seem to want to revert to the old 2.0 style Gnome, but I don't dislike modern Gnome (except that it has some awful quirks for multiple displays, where both displays do the shrink-and-dim thing, which is terrible for use with projections, presentations, watching movies, etc.).
(sorry :>) I didn't use Linux for any desktop/laptop for years until it got easily bundled last summer with Fedora. Thanks to Mint for that, though.
I don't know if I'd use it or not, but I'd like to see an attempt to make an ubuntu or debian based distro centered around a tiling window manager(preferably i3). From my experience, i3 provides to the desktop what tabbing provides to browsers. One thing I like about tiling WM is that there is not "native" GUI so there can't be any snort of snobbery about what is or is not native.
There are tools available that make it easier to create a custom Linux distro, including ones that allow you to customise Debian and Ubuntu, so it might not be that hard to do what you're suggesting:
They tell you.
The claims about how great arch is are almost word for word what people used to say about gentoo.
Sure both distributions let you build your system from scratch but the days upon days of compiling just to slightly optimize a binary is squarely a gentooism.
full disclosure: used to be a gentoo dev / am currently an Exherbo (rolling release/source distro) Dev.
Gentoo Linux is a great distro for those who want to learn everything about Linux. Because you have to install everything manually, you learn all the bits and pieces of a Linux-based operating system.
Gentoo is the most customizable distribution.
Gentoo also one of the best rolling releases. It’s always updated. Users always run the latest packages.
Gentoo is also known for having excellent documentation. The Gentoo Wiki is my to-go resource for everything Linux related.
What I like the most about Gentoo is that is offers almost every package and software that’s available for “any” Linux distribution
Only if you don't value any sense of security
https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/
Also, kernel.org was hacked because a rootkit gained access to their servers, not because they used a weak password like `upMint`, so you shouldn't compare both incidents.
This is clearly hyperbole. "no effort"? C'mon.
> no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively.
The hacked .iso was up for less than 24 hrs, so that puts a hard limit on the worst part of the compromise. The forum issues they fixed in a couple of days. This seems like a reasonably effective response to me.
> I was a big fan of Mint usability who reluctantly had to ditch it.
Did you really have to ditch it? Or did you just decide to go with a distro that emphasizes security over convenience? (Which is, of course, a completely reasonable thing to do, but others may make other (also reasonable) choices.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11142986
The hacker who's comment is number one should tell you what level of security they have going on.
Also, is ryanlol a well-known hacker or something? (I had never heard of him.)
I went back to modifying Ubuntu for the Mint use-cases since they do combine usability and at least attempts on their security.
your firewall won't help against socket re-use; and most configs won't stop connect-backs since they allow unfiltered outbound access to quite a few destination ports
Your points about socket re-use and connect-backs may well be true, but they miss the larger point. How much security is enough? Your computer is less vulnerable if you air-gap it. Do you do this? Likely not, because that's inconvenient. The Mint devs sacrifice some (not much, it seems to me, but some) security for convenience. Maybe you don't like the tradeoffs they made. Fine. But saying some blanket statement like "Mint is insecure" is just silly. It's like saying "Connecting your computer to the Internet is insecure." Yeah, there's some truth to it, but it also ignores the fact that sometimes it makes sense to trade some security for convenience.
1. How quickly after a fresh install I can get the desktop into a state where I like it. This is mostly just adding things that aren't included, removing things that are, tweaking keyboard shortcuts, etc.
2. How many of what I'll call "mundane IT issues" I bump into in the course of daily, non-developer use.
Note that #1 is based almost entirely on a personal preference and #2 is based on what I happen to need to do on any random day of the week. I don't expect it to carry over perfectly to anyone else's experience.
I will say, however, that I am more impressed with Linux Mint 17.3 (Cinnamon) than with any desktop Linux since middle years of Crunchbang, when it had hit its stride. If Mint 18 is just as solid, Mint might become the desktop distro I've spent the longest single stretch of time with. It would need 2 more years to hit that mark, but because they are basing each version on the 2-year Ubuntu LTS cycle, it seems possible.
Ubuntu on Windows 10 (UbuNTu)
This has already massively improved my productivity in writing cross-platform C++ code.
TBH, If I had to choose between "any real Linux distribution" with WINE and Windows with "a real UNIX terminal", I would prefer the latter.
Personally I prefer MATE since it's a fork of the good old GNOME 2, but I don't use a DE in my servers, so having SSH (installed by Git for Windows) is enough to connect to them.
I also install GnuWin32[1] to avoid getting the `'%s' is not recognized` error whenever I'm using the console and I type by muscle memory some basic commands like ls, or pwd, or grep, and ConEmu[2] with Clink[3] to remove several annoyances of the Windows Command Line.
Having a "good enough" UNIX terminal like OS X is something I'm waiting to see in the next iterations of Windows.
[1] http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/
[3] https://mridgers.github.io/clink/
PS. Don't patronize all the people who prefer Windows like a freshman who drank the Linux cool-aid for the first time, most of us need to exchange files with people from different areas. The need to use Photoshop, Word or Illustrator over GIMP, Writer or Inkscape is not a matter of preference, but a matter of being productive by not troubleshooting issues that arise due to the lack of popularity of FOSS alternatives, to give an example: Try to open a .docx and a .odt attachment in Gmail for Android without an Office app, you'll get really surprised and disappointed at the same time ;)
i have no interest in setting up pulseaudio/alsa or having to set nomodeset in my grub config for the 20th time.
If the userspace people had their way, the option would likely have been ripped out long ago.
I always run into tedious issues with Ubuntu and Mint regarding to Atheros Wifi and NVIDIA cards.
Is there a distro with good chances of running out of the box?
It's made me enjoy using Linux again and reminds me of how fun Linux was when Enlightenment was still cool. Mint really let me down the last couple of versions.
One of the most underrated Debian based distros out there right now.
I primarily install it on adults' whose children have left home and older people's computers (which are disproportionately devices powerful enough to run Vista but with <4GB RAM), put the three or four apps they need in Plank, integrate their email, and transfer over their bookmarks and contacts, and leave them to it. I don't even tell them it's Linux.
It runs well on older hardware, has excellent support, and looks nice. Besides Skype's shit Linux support, it's a perfect platform for them to digitally reconnect with family and friends without having to worry about any unnecessary details.
For it's downsides, it's less responsive than OS X, or animations and actions don't feel as tight, and it really doesn't want to be tinkered with. As a general use OS, though, it's pretty complete.
I think the author means CentOS and RedHat.
The opportunity window to eat Windows 8's market share is gone with Win 10. And I see no voice recognition on any distro.
Honestly, Android on the desktop is the future of desktop Linux.
There will never be a year of the Linux Desktop based on any of the Gnome / KDE / whatever window managers.
Imo this award should go to manjaro kde.
The main reason is consistent looks. They have chosen to create a very flat ui, thats a good choice for enabling consistency. Flat ui happens to be the design trend nowadays, which makes it also fashionable.
Manjaro still managed to make the icons look distinctive enough to be useful. Further strong points are good spacing, good use of fonts and consistency throughout the whole interface. The file manager is more powerful than the file explorer from mswindows, but the gui is still cleaner.
This video shows some of the looks. http://linuxscoop.com/video/manjaro-15-12-kde
Manjaro offers a pleasant surprise to people coming from windows (like me). I have tried mint, ubuntu, elementary os, and manjaro but I feel manjaro looks like the most modern and advanced desktop.
In contrast to something like Buildroot, which is a set of config files and dependency matching scripts that allows you to compile your own tool chain, and build your custom software with the same tooling you compiled your target uboot/rootfs/kernel on. Buildroot was great for being able to compile your boot loaders, kernels, rootfs, apps... and it was simple to use. But supporting multiple boards deploying the same programs was difficult, and moving up versions of the kernel and things like that was also difficult.
Enter yocto. The sweet sweet glory of yocto. Yocto defines a common base layer of configuration scripts and uses a system called bitbake to build your recipes. (bitbake emerged from portage). On top of that base layer you add layers you need. A lot of arm manufacturers are in the openembedded alliance (which yocto is built on top of) so you'll find git repos from them supported just about every chip and SoC they make. so you pull that layer in. Then you browse the yocto repos for other layers you need to pull in, as well as develop your own layers containing your code. Cross-compilation is a snap, and most interestingly: their developer mode which puts you in a shell with a correctly configured environment so you can debug build breaks while cross compiling is amazing (and git aware)). So it's pluses are -tremendous board support -easy ability to migrate to boards that aren't supported (as easy as it can be anyhow) - ability to put your product code in one layer and just drag it into multiple yocto projects utilizing different board support layers allowing you to easily maintain your product on different processors. - It's the cleanest system I've seen that does what it does. And by cleanest, I mean a pretty big jump over it's predecessors into something unlike anything I'd ever seen in the embedded world. - It does have a harder learning curve than something like buildroot, which has a harder learning curve over something like Arch ARM (where Arch ARM supports your exact SoC)