What do you guys think about these distro(S)
* what do you like and what you dont
* and any extra outputs appreciated

*Gentoo
*VLOS (Gentoo based)
*Phaeronix (Gentoo based)
*Conrad (Gentoo Install Method)
*Kororaa (Gentoo based)
*Frugalware
*Arch Linux
*Underground Desktop (Arch based)
*PCLinuxOS
*SAM Linux (mandriva based)
*BLAG (fedora based)
*Ubuntu
*Kanotix
*Parsix
*Debian
*ZenWalk

I dont know about many of those, but I use Ubuntu on many occasions (I have at present, 5 running pcs with multi-boot setups) Gentoo is decent, and Arch I know well. It is the one I really DONT like. Ive always found it to be an annoyance at best. May not be what you wanted to hear, but, you did ask

I scored 11 out of the 16 with this thread

Debian is well represented but I think you can't compare them properly unless you have Suse, Mandriva, Slackware and Fedora.

Blag is close to Fedora C3 I think but there is Fedora C5 which is on 2nd release.

Sam is a mini version of Mandrake but the latest version has grown a lot bigger in one CD. Real Mandriva comes in 4 CD.

Mandriva Free releases are usually on 3 CDs not 4.

reddaz,

You are right. Mandriva has only 3 CDs.

The only thing it stood out of my mind is that it is only distro I come come across that allow me to load up all the disks in one operation so they I can leave the installation unattended, go out to play or make tea and come back to find a system ready. Didn't take long to install either.

The worst I experienced is FreeBSD. Comes in just two disks. I clicked some packages to install. The installer asked for a second disk and so I swapped. Then it said it needed the first disk and after couple of files read it asked for the second disk again. It went on about a hundred times! and I kept swapping the disks like a blue-ass fly.

Yeah the FreeBSD installer needs sorting out. The first time that happened to me I thought my isos were corrupt or something. Anyway now I just do a base install and then use ports to install everything else.

From that list, the distro that I think is really cool is PCLinuxOS based on Mandriva. Most of the Debian based distros seem to be just reinventing the wheel i.e. take Debian unstable/testing (and/or Knoppix in the case of Live CDs) add a few latest packages and create a distro from it. Most lack unique features, so if it were me choosing a distro, I would just go for Debian proper.

Which one is the one you dont like ?

you said you use ubuntu on many occasions, and say gentoo is decent and that you know arch well.

True. I didn't mention Suse because its too slow on my slow pc and anyways its not my taste anymore I gotta do so much to get mp3 etc .

Wel l've used FC5-Devel just recently and so far so good but havent tried mp3 or nothing yet.
Mandriva well thats what SAM is for
Blag currently is working on the blag50k (fc5 based) . I remember when Fc3 was out, and their blag30k was popping good, I love that damn distro it was fedora w/ full power

PCLinuxOS was based off Mandrake 9.2 , no longer based off mdv but only somewhat . PCLOS has really turned out to be its own but of coursed based off Mandrake 9.2 , but more up to date than Mandriva ! Livecd + installable thats even better.

SAM use to be less than 300mb, it was mini right now preview is not. But compared to actual Mandriva unless you want to use stable and be outdated or use cooker and sometimes have some issues cuz thas thow cooker is . IF you have broadband u can get the net-install, but if not yea it sucks getting 3 cds for mandriva, suse, fedora right ? 1 cd owns!

Your right on the debian part. I only have respect for Kanotix and Ubuntu. And some for Parsix

Huge chunks of PCLinuxOS are still based on Mandriva (maybe not the current release but certainly versions after 9.2). Take a look at the rpm package names and you'll notice that there are a lot from recent Mandriva releases.

Debian sticks with old kernels and that has its drawback. If you install it in a high-number partition it can't find its own root, can't boot iself at such position or mount other partitions except those lower down. It always has a bit of bother with hardware recognition too. OK it is stable but for only working in the lower half of say a 300Gb disk, preferably below the 137Gb barrier.

Ubuntu and Knoppix are Debian based but they are forces of their own. Being Debian they are (or their installers) also afraid of large hard disks and high-number partitions but slightly better than Debian.

Suse and Mandriva on the other hand can be installed and booted from maximum partition number permitted in Linux.

Well. in Kanotix I was just using 2.6.15-Kanotix-MP kernel. I have't used Pure Deb for a while . Ubuntu Breezy (Stable) is still on 2.6.12 kernel, Ubuntu Dapper (very very unstable) is on 2.6.15 kern. Kanotix is as good as it gets if you a debian fan . And now Parsix an iranian distro, for persian support also. Has i686 kernel , is debian/kanotix based, also has kanotix kernel, gnome 2.12.2 default for us 'gnome lovers'

RobNyc, I should have worded that whole statement with somewhat better clarity. Arch is the one I do not like. I admit, its pretty fast. However, on every one of my five currently running systems (meaning I change systems often) its totally unstable and usually shuts itself down or some other random sh*@ like shutting the video card down for no reason. I keep trying every major revision of arch in the hopes they fix it by chance and then I could add it to my collection instead of a trash can. So, you CAN say I know it well, as before, and do not enjoy it.

I got'cha now.. Currently am running on my prescott pc PCLINUXOS and VLOS(Just installed). And on my celeron I had arch and the sameday I installed like 2days ago i was doing pacman -Syu and it said replace kernel26 with kernel26archck from community I did yes without knowing, and my arch was unbootable after that