What Linux Distro do the Linux users of GH use?

[Ridingmac]

Fedora on my laptop and desktop and porteus on usb for everywhere else.....when no linux is installed i bring my own

Sent from my SM-N915W8 using Tapatalk

[redleaf]

ubuntu on my web server

[rowdy]

I distro hop a lot at work - basically whatever has the packages I need and performs reasonably well.  For various reasons I need a GUI, usually running in a VM on my main workstation.

I was using Fedora, but switched back to Ubuntu.  One of our clients setup an Ubuntu server in Azure and I was encouraged to duplicate their setup to test our app in Azure.  Ubuntu seemed reasonably stable, so I setup an Ubuntu Mate desktop in a VM for miscellaneous purposes.

Although a lot of what I used Linux for I am now doing with Docker, like installing a certain combination of Python packages without corrupting the Python install on my main workstation.  Previously done in a VM, now done in Docker.

[SBJ]

I distro hop a lot at work - basically whatever has the packages I need and performs reasonably well.  For various reasons I need a GUI, usually running in a VM on my main workstation.

I was using Fedora, but switched back to Ubuntu.  One of our clients setup an Ubuntu server in Azure and I was encouraged to duplicate their setup to test our app in Azure.  Ubuntu seemed reasonably stable, so I setup an Ubuntu Mate desktop in a VM for miscellaneous purposes.

Although a lot of what I used Linux for I am now doing with Docker, like installing a certain combination of Python packages without corrupting the Python install on my main workstation.  Previously done in a VM, now done in Docker.

Docker seems pretty awesome, if you're a programmer.

[no, the other guy]

I rarely have a Linux system around. Currently, I am evaluating Gentoo and I might keep it. The community is absolutely awesome and it does not force me to do anything, which is great.

[romevi]

Man alive. I leave my distro untouched for a couple of weeks, come back, and there's a snafu. I should never have installed the f**kin' proprietary Nvidia driver...

[Jackorias]

Only time I've ever used Linux is on my Raspberry Pi... so Raspbian! Has made me want to try other linux distros though.

[SBJ]

Only time I've ever used Linux is on my Raspberry Pi... so Raspbian! Has made me want to try other linux distros though.

I'm sure you could get some good recommendations as to where to start. And there's always the option of running them in a VM like Virtualbox.

[xtrafrood]

Only had 9 updates on the 5th. Yet, one day later I had 300 updates waiting for me on the desktop, and 199 updates on the laptop. No AUR, all pacman.  0_0

[suicidal_orange]

Sounds like a stupid question but how do I know what I'm using when it comes to booting these days?  I have a flashy UEFI bios and thought I was using it but the Arch install guide talks about adding grub to the list of UEFI OSes held in bios, accessed by a hotkey on boot.  I don't use this menu, instead I think I have grub installed on the MBR as has been the way things were done since grub took over from lilo.

Only confused because openSUSE is what I'm currently running and it has the 100mb partition windows created mounted at /boot/efi, so that's what I've copied


(In case anyone's trying to follow I have two drives - one dual boots Win7 for my old i3 and openSUSE, the other has win7 for my new mobo and I'm adding Arch to it)

Edit:  Succesfully used 'grub-install /dev/sda' which claims to use UEFI mode as it's default but to add Windows I had to use the msdos entry as that's apparently what my partition table is.  Was created by Windows 7 so I would have expected GPT but apparently not...  I still have no idea how my computer works but it does so can't complain!  So far I have firefox and audacity installed, not much use without any WM/DE )

[romevi]

I guess this is progress...

[xtrafrood]

I guess this is progress...

Show Image

Nice :)

[Leslieann]

Sounds like a stupid question but how do I know what I'm using when it comes to booting these days?  I have a flashy UEFI bios and thought I was using it but the Arch install guide talks about adding grub to the list of UEFI OSes held in bios, accessed by a hotkey on boot.  I don't use this menu, instead I think I have grub installed on the MBR as has been the way things were done since grub took over from lilo.

Only confused because openSUSE is what I'm currently running and it has the 100mb partition windows created mounted at /boot/efi, so that's what I've copied


(In case anyone's trying to follow I have two drives - one dual boots Win7 for my old i3 and openSUSE, the other has win7 for my new mobo and I'm adding Arch to it)

Edit:  Succesfully used 'grub-install /dev/sda' which claims to use UEFI mode as it's default but to add Windows I had to use the msdos entry as that's apparently what my partition table is.  Was created by Windows 7 so I would have expected GPT but apparently not...  I still have no idea how my computer works but it does so can't complain!  So far I have firefox and audacity installed, not much use without any WM/DE )

If you open a disk partitioning program you should be able to see if it's partitioned using GPT (uefi) or MBR (dos). Windows 7 can use Uefi, but it's tricky to do and was really only done by a few OEM manufacturers, generally you don't see UEFI boot until Windows 8 or 8.1. Copying the UEFI parition or files will not make a disk UEFI, this goes deeper as to how the partitions are actually created and identified to the system.

Basically, if the disk was first initialized with Win7 or older, it's going to be MBR unless you specifically went in and purposely recreated the partition table (not the partitions) to GPT, and doing so will destroy the partitions and data on the disk (this does not wipe the data, do not use it and think your data is now safe!). Windows generally will not format it to something other than it already is and tends to default to MBR unless you are using 8.1 or Win10, so if you do want to convert it, setup your Windows install stick using Rufus and set the stick to use GPT or use a Linux Distro with Gparted to set the drive partitioning to GPT.

Grub works in UEFI and MBR.


All that said, it's not a big deal.
I've looked into it many times to see why GPT was supposed to be better, and not once has anyone really made any compelling argument as to why GPT is actually better. Yes, UFI has some advantages (less than people think) but UEFI is not GPT, it's just the preferred partitioning system for GPT, UEFI will boot MBR just fine.  What I wish they would do though is fix the darn bios/uefi load time, I find it insane that for all these "imrpovements", bios load times have gotten longer while the system load time has gotten shorter. At this point bios loading takes up almost 50% of my boot time.

[xtrafrood]

Sounds like a stupid question but how do I know what I'm using when it comes to booting these days?  I have a flashy UEFI bios and thought I was using it but the Arch install guide talks about adding grub to the list of UEFI OSes held in bios, accessed by a hotkey on boot.  I don't use this menu, instead I think I have grub installed on the MBR as has been the way things were done since grub took over from lilo.

Only confused because openSUSE is what I'm currently running and it has the 100mb partition windows created mounted at /boot/efi, so that's what I've copied


(In case anyone's trying to follow I have two drives - one dual boots Win7 for my old i3 and openSUSE, the other has win7 for my new mobo and I'm adding Arch to it)

Edit:  Succesfully used 'grub-install /dev/sda' which claims to use UEFI mode as it's default but to add Windows I had to use the msdos entry as that's apparently what my partition table is.  Was created by Windows 7 so I would have expected GPT but apparently not...  I still have no idea how my computer works but it does so can't complain!  So far I have firefox and audacity installed, not much use without any WM/DE )

If you open a disk partitioning program you should be able to see if it's partitioned using GPT (uefi) or MBR (dos). Windows 7 can use Uefi, but it's tricky to do and was really only done by a few OEM manufacturers, generally you don't see UEFI boot until Windows 8 or 8.1. Copying the UEFI parition or files will not make a disk UEFI, this goes deeper as to how the partitions are actually created and identified to the system.

Basically, if the disk was first initialized with Win7 or older, it's going to be MBR unless you specifically went in and purposely recreated the partition table (not the partitions) to GPT, and doing so will destroy the partitions and data on the disk (this does not wipe the data, do not use it and think your data is now safe!). Windows generally will not format it to something other than it already is and tends to default to MBR unless you are using 8.1 or Win10, so if you do want to convert it, setup your Windows install stick using Rufus and set the stick to use GPT or use a Linux Distro with Gparted to set the drive partitioning to GPT.

Grub works in UEFI and MBR.


All that said, it's not a big deal.
I've looked into it many times to see why GPT was supposed to be better, and not once has anyone really made any compelling argument as to why GPT is actually better. Yes, UFI has some advantages (less than people think) but UEFI is not GPT, it's just the preferred partitioning system for GPT, UEFI will boot MBR just fine.  What I wish they would do though is fix the darn bios/uefi load time, I find it insane that for all these "imrpovements", bios load times have gotten longer while the system load time has gotten shorter. At this point bios loading takes up almost 50% of my boot time.

I think I had dual boot issues when Windows tried to fix a 'boot problem'. Nope, in the future Windows will (if any) reside on a separate hotswap drive. I automate daily snapshots with Borgbackup but I'd rather not go through the trouble of restoring Arch. Even if it only takes a few hours--it's still a headache I'd rather avoid.

[Leslieann]

Arch, it's a headache.

Fixed that for you.  )

[suicidal_orange]

Thanks for the explanation Leslieann - I've been a mainly Linux user for so long I don't really know what Windows does but Win7 creating an EFI partition lead me to believe it was using something new and flashy when it wasn't.  After a drive failure I read it was easier to install Windows first then Linux and sure enough it worked with all the 'newbie friendly' distros (no need to recover grub and sometimes Windows was even added automatically) so I've stuck with it.  Now I'm looking for something a bit more interesting I actually have to know - UEFI/MBR it is.

Arch, it's a headache.

Fixed that for you.  )

This is more worrying, I thought most people loved Arch?  Hopefully I'm with them not you )

I think I had dual boot issues when Windows tried to fix a 'boot problem'. Nope, in the future Windows will (if any) reside on a separate hotswap drive. I automate daily snapshots with Borgbackup but I'd rather not go through the trouble of restoring Arch. Even if it only takes a few hours--it's still a headache I'd rather avoid.

Boot live DVD/USB, mount and chroot to the installed Linux, run grub-install, reboot?  Windows only kills the bootloader, it's annoying but shouldn't take more than 15 mins to fix.  Unless you need to download/burn an ISO...

[xtrafrood]

Thanks for the explanation Leslieann - I've been a mainly Linux user for so long I don't really know what Windows does but Win7 creating an EFI partition lead me to believe it was using something new and flashy when it wasn't.  After a drive failure I read it was easier to install Windows first then Linux and sure enough it worked with all the 'newbie friendly' distros (no need to recover grub and sometimes Windows was even added automatically) so I've stuck with it.  Now I'm looking for something a bit more interesting I actually have to know - UEFI/MBR it is.

Arch, it's a headache.

Fixed that for you.  )

This is more worrying, I thought most people loved Arch?  Hopefully I'm with them not you )

I think I had dual boot issues when Windows tried to fix a 'boot problem'. Nope, in the future Windows will (if any) reside on a separate hotswap drive. I automate daily snapshots with Borgbackup but I'd rather not go through the trouble of restoring Arch. Even if it only takes a few hours--it's still a headache I'd rather avoid.

Boot live DVD/USB, mount and chroot to the installed Linux, run grub-install, reboot?  Windows only kills the bootloader, it's annoying but shouldn't take more than 15 mins to fix.  Unless you need to download/burn an ISO...

Meh,  chrooting every other time I recieve a Windows update that needs multiple restarts is not my preferred cup of tea. You're braver than I am.

And automating a pacman log isn't that difficult. I use a wrapper script I wrote (5-10min) that records package names/date/size before every update on both of my arch boxes. I have had more headaches with my Debian netinstall to be honest. Trying to wade through all the bad ubuntu/debian advice has been a treat. Thankfully I'm only using Buster (deb10 works fine--It's just been a while since my last full debian install) to test out Proton/protontricks and a few esoteric scripts.

[no, the other guy]

I thought most people loved Arch?

I can only imagine that this is some kind of Stockholm syndrome. The way to a running Arch installation is so painful that they won't even dare to go anywhere else when it's done.

[xtrafrood]

Arch is not for everyone.

[suicidal_orange]

Meh,  chrooting every other time I recieve a Windows update that needs multiple restarts is not my preferred cup of tea. You're braver than I am.

Pretty sure I've not had this problem this year, maybe win8/10 are worse though.  When I started in Linux you had to remember to update the config file and reinstall lilo after a kernel update (compiled from source after carefully going through the new feature options by hand) as lilo didn't read the options from a file as grub does.  Couple this with a small hard drive and the irresponsibility of youth meaning the old kernel was deleted without trace while the new one was compiling and the ratio of kernel updates (at least weekly to play with the latest patchset) to times you needed to do a liveCD/chroot recovery was probably 80%.  I feel like the old guy telling a 'back in my day...' story )

I can only imagine that this is some kind of Stockholm syndrome. The way to a running Arch installation is so painful that they won't even dare to go anywhere else when it's done.

Arch is not for everyone.

I see.  So far it's ok - I'm typing this as a user in enlightenment and it was easier to get here than I remember the gentoo installation being.  Time will tell...

[no, the other guy]

Installing Gentoo only took me four days. 

[Leslieann]

Thanks for the explanation Leslieann - I've been a mainly Linux user for so long I don't really know what Windows does but Win7 creating an EFI partition lead me to believe it was using something new and flashy when it wasn't.  After a drive failure I read it was easier to install Windows first then Linux and sure enough it worked with all the 'newbie friendly' distros (no need to recover grub and sometimes Windows was even added automatically) so I've stuck with it.  Now I'm looking for something a bit more interesting I actually have to know - UEFI/MBR it is.

You're welcome.
I haven't messed with Win7 on GPT enough to tell you how it goes I only know it wasn't native to it, it was patched in long after launch, and that it doesn't install to it the same way Win8 does. I didn't bother experimenting with it because it really wasn't necessary. Usually if I want Win7 I just use MBR for everything and if I use anything newer I set everything to UEFI, there's no performance lost really.

I could spend the time to figure it out and mess with it, but generally I recommend people switch to 8.1 with an alternate start menu if they don't want to switch over to Win10 (which I don't blame them for). Win7 support is going to dry up fast, evangelists will try and keep it alive just like they did with Xp, but honestly, they can't, it's not up to them. At some point in the very near future if you want new hardware or peripherals you will be forced to update if you stick with Windows. While 8.1 it has fewer users (by A LOT), Win10 uses it's driver and power management subsystems so it can use the same driver most of the time so it's easy for companies to make one driver for both or you can force backwards compatibility.

I use Antergos which is basically Arch without all the installation hassle (still not as easy as Mint), but I'm familiar with and work with a variety of operating systems from Windows servers down to Arduino and Android (sooo many Isos on file). I don't hate Arch, I just tend to look at it as a hobby OS, it's great, it's fast, it's cutting edge, which is the problem. Stability is generally good until a developer forgets to cross a T or dot an I and crashes the system, or like last time, they didn't flag it to update grub after installing an update causing it to not boot. It has far fewer levels of checks than something like Mint, which if you like messing with operating systems can be downright boring due to how stable it is. I don't hate Arch, it's just more work to keep it running than something like Mint.

Use what works for you.

[xtrafrood]

My Arch install took about 1.6 years to 'complete' )

[suicidal_orange]

Installing Gentoo only took me four days. 

Four days?!  I did it in two on a 2ghz pentium 4 laptop with 512mb back in the day

My Arch install took about 1.6 years to 'complete' )

This, however, sounds like a different level of completeness - are you sure it's done?

[xtrafrood]

Installing Gentoo only took me four days. 

Four days?!  I did it in two on a 2ghz pentium 4 laptop with 512mb back in the day

My Arch install took about 1.6 years to 'complete' )

This, however, sounds like a different level of completeness - are you sure it's done?

Maybe. Though it might need a few more tweaks, heh.

edit - side note: (pre-hidpi binge) I tried Kubuntu and liked it but some calendar things were meh imo; I'll try KDE Neon instead (same startup ram--liveiso); Elementary is still not for me; and Pop OS might be the one. I won't be sure until I've exausted the possibility of using my bspwm fraken desktop with hidpi, and or I've actually installed all of the above. Some liveISOs ship with notificationy things pre-installed and some do not, etc..

[iri]

Manjaro is #1 on DistroWatch for the last 12 months. Looks like it's been long since I have last checked that website.

[no, the other guy]

The DistroWatch "top" list only counts access statistics. The ranking is different.

[xtrafrood]

Star Linux, Slackware, and Shark Linux are the top three reviewed distros of Distrowatch? Atleast Slackware has 141 reviews.. so that's probably legit--totally not botted at all.

[no, the other guy]

That's why DistroWatch is generally unreliable in the top lists. Slackware is quite legit though.

[xtrafrood]

I see.

[iri]

Yeah, the fact that Manjaro gets twice as many hits as Mint was very surprising to me.

[_rubik]

Yeah, the fact that Manjaro gets twice as many hits as Mint was very surprising to me.

Manjaro is #1 on DistroWatch for the last 12 months.

I left Arch and went back to Debian some 3 years ago because I didn't have enough time in my day to keep up with it/fiddle with everything. I switched to Manjaro a few months back and (I think) I'm here to stay.

Not sure if there's a major difference, but the ease of installation/out of box feature set makes it perfect for someone who wants to use arch, but doesn't care too much about the 'little stuff'

[Leslieann]

One problem with Distrowatch stats is that only people looking for a different distro go there, not those who are perfectly happy with the one they have.There is also the obvious problem of people who have no idea that site even exists and still another problem with ranking on that site is age, some of the distros listed are no longer developed. Apricity (ranked 27) last saw an update 2 years ago and is marked inactive on Distrowatch.

Going based on Google (based on traffic, inbound links and Google rank), the most popular is:
1. Ubuntu
2. Mint
3. Debian
4. Redhat
5. Gentoo
6. Fedora,
7. Slackware
8. Suse
9. Arch
10. CentOs

Going by Alexa (which is based solely on traffic):
1. Ubuntu
2. Redhat
3. Mint
4. Debian
5. Cent
6. Arch
7. Gentoo
8. Elementary
9. Fedora
10. Suse

Note that Manjaro doesn't even make top 10 on either list, yet has almost as many votes as Mint (#2) and Elementary (#3) combined, that screams manipulation. I'm not saying Manjaro isn't popular, but to say it's almost as popular as Mint, Debian and Ubuntu combined? Not a chance.

[Leslieann]

Not sure if there's a major difference, but the ease of installation/out of box feature set makes it perfect for someone who wants to use arch, but doesn't care too much about the 'little stuff'

There is.
Manjaro uses their own servers for updates, this makes them a bit less bleeding edge than Arch, which is good for stability, but not so good for zero day threats.

Compared to Arch it's way easier to install, though almost every time I used it I've had to fix their security key to get updates which didn't inspire a lot of confidence (seriously, WTH?).

[xtrafrood]

Yeah, the fact that Manjaro gets twice as many hits as Mint was very surprising to me.

Manjaro is #1 on DistroWatch for the last 12 months.

I left Arch and went back to Debian some 3 years ago because I didn't have enough time in my day to keep up with it/fiddle with everything. I switched to Manjaro a few months back and (I think) I'm here to stay.

Not sure if there's a major difference, but the ease of installation/out of box feature set makes it perfect for someone who wants to use arch, but doesn't care too much about the 'little stuff'

I suppose I did the opposite. I used one Manjaro GUI tool to try to install the proprietary gpu rather than a few minutes on the arch wiki which caused me to fubar my graphics stack. So after eights months of Manjaro and installing arch in vms I finally made the switch to vanilla. Although, the Manjaro i3wm community edition and the Calamares installer are both pretty great.

As far as the differences between Manjaro vs. Arch: some package updates are tested a bit longer before release when compared to arch, and some are injected with Manjaro-ness (for better or worse). Completely different repos. So you might see less instances in which an application is borked due to dependency point releases. Or they might hold on to a package while they inject Manjaro-y css/xml/art assets/etc..

[Leslieann]

I suppose I did the opposite. I used one Manjaro GUI tool to try to install the proprietary gpu rather than a few minutes on the arch wiki which caused me to fubar my graphics stack. So after eights months of Manjaro and installing arch in vms I finally made the switch to vanilla. Although, the Manjaro i3wm community edition and the Calamares installer are both pretty great.

As far as the differences between Manjaro vs. Arch: some package updates are tested a bit longer before release when compared to arch, and some are injected with Manjaro-ness (for better or worse). Completely different repos. So you might see less instances in which an application is borked due to dependency point releases. Or they might hold on to a package while they inject Manjaro-y css/xml/art assets/etc..

I tended to use the Cinnamon community edition, which is probably why I had issues with security keys, but still.

As for vanilla Arch... Just use Antergos.

[iri]

Anyway, I installed MX Linux and my battery life extended by 100%.

[xtrafrood]

Anyway, I installed MX Linux and my battery life extended by 100%.

Oh my, I swear I've used that Conky config before (MJRDarkConky?). I enjoy the heck out of Lubuntu but I do need to take MX for a spin one of these days. Debian based huh? Interesting.

[iri]

And no systemd!

[xtrafrood]

Nice. I guess non-systemd would be confusing at first when people need to restart server stuffs. I make use of a systemd weekly SSD trim timer--other than that timers seem like an industry thing. crontab -e ftw

[no, the other guy]

Now Gentoo has a systemd flavor if you insist.

[rowdy]

IBM just bought Red Hat.

Is anyone going to switch to, or from, Red Hat or a derivative because of this?

We use CentOS around here, which was absorbed into Red Hat a while ago.  Unlikely that we'll change.  I'm just hoping that IBM doesn't kill off CentOS to focus on Red Hat and cloud.

[xtrafrood]

IBM just bought Red Hat.

Is anyone going to switch to, or from, Red Hat or a derivative because of this?

We use CentOS around here, which was absorbed into Red Hat a while ago.  Unlikely that we'll change.  I'm just hoping that IBM doesn't kill off CentOS to focus on Red Hat and cloud.

Holy moly, I feel for those Red Hat employees (indirect or direct) that read about the sale before the internal emails were sent out. And yea, Fedora is in my practical top five list for when I switch to hidpi.

[Findecanor]

"What do you get when you add a Red Hat to Big Blue? You get a Big Purple Hat, obviously. I wonder if they're thinking of adding an ostrich feather?"

[iri]

Now Gentoo has a systemd flavor if you insist.

ewwwww

[_rubik]

IBM just bought Red Hat.

Is anyone going to switch to, or from, Red Hat or a derivative because of this?

We use CentOS around here, which was absorbed into Red Hat a while ago.  Unlikely that we'll change.  I'm just hoping that IBM doesn't kill off CentOS to focus on Red Hat and cloud.

I think we'll largely be fine for a year or two before any major changes are made. After that, I'm banking SUSE starts developing an enterprise distro... no well and hell I'm relying on Ubuntu :puke:

[xtrafrood]

IBM just bought Red Hat.

Is anyone going to switch to, or from, Red Hat or a derivative because of this?

We use CentOS around here, which was absorbed into Red Hat a while ago.  Unlikely that we'll change.  I'm just hoping that IBM doesn't kill off CentOS to focus on Red Hat and cloud.

I think we'll largely be fine for a year or two before any major changes are made. After that, I'm banking SUSE starts developing an enterprise distro... no well and hell I'm relying on Ubuntu :puke:

https://www.suse.com/products/desktop/

[_rubik]

IBM just bought Red Hat.

Is anyone going to switch to, or from, Red Hat or a derivative because of this?

We use CentOS around here, which was absorbed into Red Hat a while ago.  Unlikely that we'll change.  I'm just hoping that IBM doesn't kill off CentOS to focus on Red Hat and cloud.

I think we'll largely be fine for a year or two before any major changes are made. After that, I'm banking SUSE starts developing an enterprise distro... no well and hell I'm relying on Ubuntu :puke:

https://www.suse.com/products/desktop/

Enterprise "Desktop"

[Belfong]

IBM just bought Red Hat.

Is anyone going to switch to, or from, Red Hat or a derivative because of this?

We use CentOS around here, which was absorbed into Red Hat a while ago.  Unlikely that we'll change.  I'm just hoping that IBM doesn't kill off CentOS to focus on Red Hat and cloud.

I’m hoping IBM wise up and leave Redhat alone, much like how every other successful acquisitions behave - eg Dell and VMware

Nice read:
https://www.cringely.com/2018/10/29/red-hat-takes-over-ibm/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xtrafrood]

IBM just bought Red Hat.

Is anyone going to switch to, or from, Red Hat or a derivative because of this?

We use CentOS around here, which was absorbed into Red Hat a while ago.  Unlikely that we'll change.  I'm just hoping that IBM doesn't kill off CentOS to focus on Red Hat and cloud.

I think we'll largely be fine for a year or two before any major changes are made. After that, I'm banking SUSE starts developing an enterprise distro... no well and hell I'm relying on Ubuntu :puke:

https://www.suse.com/products/desktop/

Enterprise "Desktop"

I'm not sure what you want me to say here. It's an Enterprise distro. And the support subscriptions are pretty reasonable.

Well, there's always SUSE Linux Enterprise Server