The quest for the perfect Linux distribution: an ongoing journey | Hacker News Reader

The quest for the perfect Linux distribution: an ongoing journey

rainbowtux.blogspot.it

37 pointspietrofmaggi30 comments

I read articles like these hoping they'd contain more interesting distributions that would challenge the status quo. Projects like GoboLinux, NixOS and such are far more alien from the average Linux distribution, which tend to be more alike than they are different. There's strong viewpoints behind them that are offering new looks at how we all could be doing things, even if they are merely one or two radical changes here and there.

On some level I think that people who try new things with Linux tend to get shouted down, usually with intense appeals to tradition -- and unless you're working on Fedora, chances are it won't see light of day. I actually view this as pretty unhealthy. It doesn't matter if these new hypothetical alien Linux distros are actually good or bad, what's important is that people are constantly trying new things for all of us to learn from.

If someone asks me about the 'perfect Linux distribution' and they only want to talk about the mainstream distributions, it means we're not dreaming big enough.

I feel like even mainstream distros are beginning to branch out. Ubuntu got Unity and upstart, Debian is switching to LXDE, Fedora spearheading systemd and selinux (while keeping gnome), opensuse experimenting with new release models, and Mint doing its Mate/Cinnamon thingy.

Contrast that to the situation couple of years back, when Ubuntu was mostly a rebadge of Debian, and almost everyone was shipping with Gnome2 as default. Even the init systems were more unified then.

This SuSE Tumbleweed looks nice. In my opinion this is what most users actually want: A stable core system (kernel, cron, Gnome, bash, ...) and bleeding edge apps (Firefox, Thunderbird, ...).

For Debian and Derivatives this seems to be missing. At least Debian backports are not in widespread use.

The term "stable" is ambiguous. For example, Debian is probably most prominent for stability. However, stable here means "version not changing". It does not mean "not crashing".

As a user, I want "not crashing" stability. For example, updating the Linux kernel is ok, because it usually fixes more bugs than it opens. Maybe some things now work (hibernation) or work better (energy consumption).

Stability should also mean "no interface changes". Updating Gnome 3.2 to 3.4 is ok. Updating Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 is not ok, because it radically changes the interface.

The term "stable" is ambiguous. For example, Debian is probably most prominent for stability. However, stable here means "version not changing". It does not mean "not crashing".

Except that Debian is notorious for long delays between stable releases precisely because they put a high emphasis on "not crashing". Add to that that security patches are constantly backported, so that while the "version numbers" don't change (except they do), packages do get bugfixes.

Stability should also mean "no interface changes". Updating Gnome 3.2 to 3.4 is ok. Updating Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 is not ok, because it radically changes the interface.

Stable interfaces are generally what you get with Debian stable; it's precisely why I run it on every machine I have (from my laptop to my servers to my HTPC to (figuratively speaking) my smartphone).

I switched from RedHat over ten years ago, and Slackware before that, and I haven't looked back since. I'm really disappointed that TFA didn't mention Debian. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it seems pretty damn good, and It Works For Me on everything I have. The amount of software available under Debian is also incredible, and their dedication to free software is not just ideologically commendable, but very practical (did I mention the laptop originally came with Ubuntu? Crashed all the time. Replaced with Debian, with no binary drivers and nary a crash since. Closed source software (particularly drivers) suck).

Totally agree with you. And no PPA are not the solution. Everything about messing with sources is bad for non advanced users.

Ubuntu + PPAs is another solution.

PPAs become quite messy in my experience. For example, they get disabled on major upgrades and I forgot why I included them.

I've run into many problems and conflicts doing this. Upgrading becomes a mess and I'm often forgetting why I needed a PPA in the first place. I don't think this is a very good long term solution for people that don't want to re-install their OS every 6 months.

I really want a distro that is minimal but also "just works." I like tweaking things as much as the next guy, but when I'm heading off to work and want to print a shipping label from my laptop quick, I really don't want to have to sit and read a manual to figure out why my printer isn't working. On the other hand, 90% of the time I'm at my computer, I'm just using Vim or a web browser, so running a full desktop stack seems like a waste.

The closest thing I've found to what I want is Debian Testing. I've heard good things about Gentoo, and while I think I'm more than capable of RTFM and doing it myself, and sometimes I enjoy doing it myself--other time, I really do want it to just work so I can get work done too.

"Sometimes I liked to learn things, but on other days it just had to work, without fiddling too much."

Desktop: CentOS 6, laptop: Ubuntu whatever. I've used Debian Stable on the desktop previously. Good people are finding things that work for them.

Debian Unstable:

- apt-get / aptitude

- lots of packages

- rolling release

- big community

- committed to support Free Software

Over the years, I've had too many issues with Unstable breaking when I needed it most (generally something work-related). As a home/hobbyist system, it's probably fine though.

The article's mention of this Tumbleweed distribution is interesting - a stable, non-breaking core, with up-to-date applications. In fact, achieving that sweet spot is why I migrated to OS X some years ago. I'm going to check it out.

In reaction to this article I googled around and found SolusOS. Building on Debian stable, adding convenient non-free stuff (drivers, flash, etc.) and fresh apps (e.g. current Firefox). I'm currently preparing the install disk, so no real experience so far, but the reviews are good.

http://solusos.com/

> I've had too many issues with Unstable breaking

So what you're saying is the distribution called Unstable is somewhat... unstable at times?

Debian testing as been a good mix of "stable" and "new" for me. I was using Squeeze for awhile and it seems like "stable" in the Debian sense can also mean buggy and feature-less. There was a battery eating, CPU melting bug in the Squeeze kernel, and the fix wasn't actually brought over from testing. I'm thinking to myself "how stable is this really if I'm not getting an important fix like that?"

Stable means "doesn't change", not "works fine". If you have a system running smoothly, Stable guarantees you won't get new surprises.

I second this. I switched from Arch to Debian unstable so I could have machines targeting unstable, testing and stable all from the same distro.

I do miss Arch-style init though.

Arch makes it trivially easy to poke at the source code for any particular package, which has immensely helped me learn how things work.

I'm just curious: did that matter very much to you? if so, is there some Debian process to do the same thing?

  apt-get source [package-name]

This downloads the source of the package to the current directory. To compile, first install the compilation dependencies:

  apt-get build-dep [package-name]

Then inside the source directory, the easiest way is to install debuild and then just run:

  debuild

That compiles and creates a .deb ready to install.

The New Maintainers guide[1] has a lot of information, though most is only relevant if you want to become an official Debian maintainer; for tweaking existing packages, it's not important.

[1]: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.en.html

I did the exact same thing. Migrated my office (6 PC and 3 servers) from Arch to Debian for the reason you give.

I don't miss Arch since I'm very happy with it at home and on my laptop.

A note about Arch: most WMs and DEs have support for packages that allow configuration through a GUI, although the installation is all text. Configuration through editing text can sometimes be faster when you really know your system. As the author points out, running arch can really help you to get to know your system.

Also, it's been awhile since I was "new" to linux, but arch installation can be very easy if you follow the beginners guide on the arch wiki. Everything is spelled out plain and simple.

There is a graphical installer for a branch off of arch, known as Archbang. It's basically a live system you can boot into (with openbox) and install from there (still text based really, but a little more friendly). (Some arch users also fear the road of a GUI installer because it would make it easier for people with little understanding of linux to run arch, but that is a flawed philosophy. Arch can be for learning too)

Installing Arch is easy as long as you don't want to do anything clever. As soon as you want to do something like setting software RAID up, it becomes much less easy :P. At least that's been my experience.

Maybe with my next laptop I'll try Arch properly, but it was too much of a pain last time I tried to install it with my current setup.

I generally don't set up RAID on any of my machines because there really is no need. A quick google search though returns tons of stuff on the archwiki, which goes through preparation and installation/execution. This isn't only the case with RAID. As awayand said, the documentation is golden.

the wiki is there to guide you better than any other distros docu out there, well except maybe gentoos wiki...

As of last month or so, Arch threw out their installer. You now have to use the command line. Does this make it harder in your experience?

No. I actually went through the process of installing it on a netbook about two weeks ago. First time seeing it that way. Jumped onto archwiki and gave it a quick read. I can't remember how long it took me, but couldn't have been that long.

And it certainly was not any "harder", just different than the way I'm used to. That being said, arch has some of the best documentation and user support out there.

EDIT1: a fresh install of arch usually takes me less than an hour, but it usually takes me a couple days (few hours a day) to get the system just how I like it. This is because I always change things up when I do a fresh install.

EDIT2: I think one of the things that scares people away isn't so much the text based installation, it's the fact that after the installation you pretty much have a bare system. Getting the configuration to your liking can be exhausting (especially if you've just been using a DE for your entire linux experience). When I made the switch to WMs instead of DEs it was pretty difficult to figure everything out. There are so many ways to do everything and you can mix and match everything. I hard to imagine setting up a system from nothing for a less experienced linux user, but it is definitely worth it. Just RTFM before asking questions in the forums.

Obviously there is no "perfect" Linux-Distro for everyone. I grew to like Fedora, but the perfect Distro to me would've been one I put together myself. And thats why we use Linux after all, isn't it? Because we can choose from so many flavors. That's also the conclusion the writer comes to- the article is more of a look at some popular distros, even if the title suggests something else.

I've been using Mint the past few weeks and it's been solid. I'll stick with it for the time being (but the new SusE sounds awesome and I've always preferred RPM over DEB).

Sabayon is a rolling release distro that is far easier for newbies than arch. Worth looking at.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com