So someone help me out here: I'm primarily a NetBSD user (for about 8 years now) - I converted after I realized that OpenBSD crashes too much due to poorly written drivers (this was around OpenBSD 2.x) and I really didn't like the elitist attitude of the userbase. Fortunately, NetBSD and OpenBSD feel almost identical so the switch was easy. I've used Solaris for a few years too, and Digital Unix (before it came Tru64 or whatever it's called these days), so I have good Unix experience.
As of recently, I've converted my desktop machine at work to OS X. I like it a lot, but I still run Windows on my home computer so I can stay productive (I need Photoshop, and no Gimp is not the same!). Now I'm considering adding Linux so I can make use of my dual core Athlon 64. That said, what's the most desktop-friendly, out-of-the-box pretty, everything-is-automated, and bloated Linux distro these days? Processor and RAM aren't a problem, I just want something pleasing to the eye that comes with lots of useful applications. I don't feel like compiling crap either. This distro chooser tells me I should install SuSE. Does everyone agree? On 1/14/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree.. > > This tool is a great idea but I think it need some work. I took the test > a bunch of times and among other things got WAY to many Linspire > reccomendations ~shivvver ~. > > It also does not ask about support. Especialy for a new users or a > business system you may want to use something you can buy support on in > an emergency. > > Mark Ellister > > > T. Joseph CARTER wrote: > > >On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:11:25AM -0800, Bob Miller wrote: > > > > > >>>Going with basic criteria (somewhere between "desktop user" and > >>>experienced) I ended up with Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Suse, Debian. > >>> > >>> > >>Yeah, I also got four recommendations. > >> > >>I like that it gives a short list instead of just saying "You are a > >>Mandriva user." > >> > >> > > > >I don't know, it seems to be very full of stereotypical responses. For > >example, it recommends Debian to me based solely on the answer to the > >question of my experience level being advanced or expert. If I tell it > >advanced, it offers me just Ubuntu. Debian's not all that high on the > >expertise requirement scale, though I know it is reputed to be preferred > >by the best and brightest. > > > >Bugs (which have been fixed) notwithstanding, the install process of > >Debian that is "so hard" is the one of Ubuntu that is "so easy". They > >also don't ask someone of high skill level how much screwing-with-it they > >want to do. Debian is disqualified by the fact that I have about zero > >interest in sitting down to carefully fine-tune a kernel config for my > >custom hardware setup. There's just no advantage to doing that anymore > >that offsets the time it takes for me to configure and maintain it. > > > >Debian technically doesn't require that even, it's just that Ubuntu's > >kernels tend to have more desktop-class-hardware support included by > >default whereas Debian default kernels are generally more workstation > >oriented. Both have basics like sound drivers for modern PCI sound chips > >and the like. > > > >I am not surprised that it basically leads me to Ubuntu though, given my > >preference for anything-but-rpm. I came to the same conclusion. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > EUGLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug > _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
