GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
This must mean that fedora is a pretty good distro for a hardcore technical person. You obviously can't get more technical than the guy who wrote the kernel.
So what I was wondering was why some people use more "core" distros like slackware, arch, gentoo, centos, debian, etc which are less user friendly than distros like fedora and opensuse?
I want to know purely out of curiosity. If you do not like this thread/question, please remember than you have the freedom to go ahead and ignore it.
You know, "someone I admire uses it" is not generally a good criterion to base a technical decision on.
Choosing a tool because someone you admire uses it—and expecting results like theirs—is like buying the type of guitar Jimi Hendrix played and hoping to fill Madison Square Garden next week. (Giveaway: “All the cool kids use ACME product.”)
I use Slackware, but I started using said distro before I began to admire Pat Volkerding .
As far as I'm concerned Slackware is user friendly, and I use Slackware because it does not get in my way of doing things, it doesn't try to automatic or be overtly complicated. That to me seems like a good example of what user friendly should be defined as.
Yes but what is it that these core distros offer than more mainstream distros can't offer?
A n00b like me has no way of knowing. I'm just curious.
Well is there something that these 'core' distros don't offer? What exactly is it then?
I can use my 'core' distro (Slackware) as a desktop as well as any Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, etc user can.
What does core distros offer that mainstream ones don't? A good trouble free working system. Lets see exactly how Ubuntu or Fedora stacks up against a core distro such as Slackware, or for that matter Debian?
Of course you have a way of knowing. You can install one of those distros and try it out.
I'm basically a ubuntu/mint user. I tried fedora the other day and that was a distro which was hard for me to use. It took over an hour just to get my wireless adapter to work. With ubuntu, all I have to do is go to "hardware devices" and click on a button. Fedora doesn't even have a "hardware devices".
I can't imagine how I would go about using something like slackware.