EWEB currently runs its snort & NTP boxes on Opteron 64 with SUSE 9.3
... however we'll shortly be switching to SLES9 since we've got the
licensing and updating worked out.
SLES9 is rippin fast.. but SUSE10 , which I've had for a short time
seems as fast.. ( would be some interesting tests ) I've got the all
open source SUSE 10 edition on CD I can distribute to anyone who want to
try. Actually I think Linux Format has the open source ver in this
months mag as well if you want to hit Barnes and Knoble...
And I must say - I was a Red Hat / Gentoo user and was forced to switch
to SUSE, so its not that Im biased as much as I was coerced heh. but
that said.. version 10 is fast, has some bitchin stuff in it ( the new
SAX for better multimonitor and card support was a great improvement all
in itself ) and YAST has made me seriously lazy, yes , but more
productive. . What I like about Yast over APT-GET is the manner in
which you can either overcome dependancy problems or tell it to ignore,
or re-install, or whatever if you've got non-standard distro version of
some things where you need to run some app that isnt in Yast yet.
Mark
Mike Cherba wrote:
I tend to prefer either Suse or Ubuntu for that sort of setup. Suse has
more apps out of the box, but Personally, I prefer Apt-get and the
various GUI front ends for it to Yast. Yast's online update
capabilities never quite work as well as I would like. Nothing I can
put my finger on, but I'd prefer Ubuntu here. I know at least a few of
the guys on here are running Athlon 64s with Ubuntu. I'm not sure if I
know anyone who is doing so with Suse.
-Mike
"Software Engineering is that part of Computer Science which is too
difficult for the Computer Scientist." --— F. L. Bauer.
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 00:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
