Why does Linux users fight about distros???
 

Ok, This thread will probably be closed in half an hour.

But I'm tired of the distro fight. I hear things like: I hate Fedora because I hear it's bad (Never tried it myself). Try not to critisize every distro, but look at the good thing in all of them. If you are so tired of many distro's we can make it as easy as Windows:

Remove Ubuntu because it sucks
Remove Mandriva because it sucks
Remove SUSE because it sucks
Remove MEPIS because it sucks
Remove KNOPPIX because it's based on Debian which sucks
Remove Fedora because it sucks
Remove Debian because it sucks
Remove Gentoo because it's not for noobs and that suck
Remove DSL because it sucks
Remove Slackware because it's commercial
Remove aLinux because it sucks
Remove BSD because it sucks
Remove the rest too because they suck

But don't remove Snøfrix! It ROCKS! Anyone tried Snøfrix? Who cares?! It rocks and therefore it's the only distro we need!

Is that the way we want Linux?

The moral is: Stop the distro war and stop telling others why $DISTRONAME sucks

Now you can close the thread

Why do comic book nerds argue about who would win a fight--the Hulk or Wolverine? People just like to argue about such things.

Nope. Thread will remain open. None of us really fight about the distro we like. We all simply have our favourites. The fact is that a huge number of us spend a long time trying a variety of distros before we hit on the one that's just right - it feels right, works the way we want it to and we are comfortable with it.

No distro wars, just friendly arguments.

Those who argue about it haven't figured out it's like arguing about wine, apples (as in fruit), or if it's better to live in the city or country, or which country is best to live in for that matter.

It's all just personal preference, and my reasons for picking Debian and Red Delicious apples are not going to fully satisfy anyone else.

This is not a failure of having too many choices. The reason we have so many choices is because there are good people with their own personal preferences who make their efforts available to others.

I would hate it if there were only one Linux distribution. So would you.

Prehaps if it was not called distro wars but distro love you might get a better idea of what it is all about.

People like to tell others about something that's made them happy - we do it all of the time, it's called word of mouth recommendation.

Linux is a very technical subject, so, its quite easy to find a reason for not liking a certain distro in the same way as you can love a distro for something quite small - and that's just the way it is!

I like Slackware for a few very simple reasons - its not produced by a large company, it reminds me of FreeBSD and its the 'truest' Linux I've found. Someone is going to post and tell me that there is a better choice which also has the same criteria. They are not neccessarally 'dissing' my choice, but mearly wanting to help me find the same nirvana as them!

The point is, if you let people go on and on about their fav distro, what harm does it do? You don't have to take their advise, but you might find, once in a blue moon that they have a point!

Have fun -


F0ul Oli

Yes, some is just friendly arguments and stuff. But I mean more like critisizing distro's without even trying them. Like, why does so many people hate Fedora? I started with redhat 9 and almost all the time I used RedHat or Fedora. I had a problem with GRUB a month ago and therefore deleted Fedora. Today I installed it again. I like Fedora. I like all the distro's I use. Even SUSE which is critisized for being "To much Windows"

Everyone has their favorite. Some people feel very strongly about "free software", which is part of the reason commercial distros tend to get picked on.

I am one of those that absolutely loves Debian. It does every thing I need it to do. I love Debian's Social Contract, and Reasons to Choose Debian.

On the other hand I am also a distro junkie and on my play system I install a new distro every couple of months; sooner if I screw it up.

I have ran Mandrake 10.0, FC3, Suse 9.2, OPenSuse, PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu, MEPIS, Xandros, Linspire, Vector, Gobolinux, and many others ; not even counting the dozens of LiveCds I have tried.

Nothing I have installed does for me what Debian does.

Different people have different needs, what works for one may not work for someone else. Some distros are also known to be more stable than others, Debian and Slackware in particular. It is pretty hard to screw up either one.

To each his/her own. Anything is better than being tied to a windows system.

Distro "wars" are healthy. They are all trying so many novel ways...

I started with Redhat 5.2 (kernel 2.0.36) back in 1998/1999. I had to setup everything manually: PPP, X, localization, etc. and there wasn't many forums like now.

Today it's easier to try any distro. There are live-cd's, screenshots, forums, etc. You must be willing to experiment and take risks to learn something.

The Gentoo installation may be lengthy, but it's extremely well documented (at the web site) and it's a rewarding experience and best suited for your personal computer. The choice of font & colors on the console and the web site are the most beautiful. This is when "fights" become subjective because users get involved with their distro in the emotional level too.

To install Linux on many machines you may use Slackware or Debian or Fedora (many universities like it). I wouldn't install Mandrake however. It must be the worst RPM distro in existence. They have like 3 versions of each library (shared, static & devel) and updating the kernel in the most legal way always messes with lilo.conf and symbolic links in a way that needs fixing (specially if you have >1 kernels). Their lack of packages (in the free to d/l 3-cd pack) is offensive if you want to compile.

All those other distros suck, everyone knows slack rules. ;)

I don't think it has anything to do with 'distro wars', it's just some users have a major case of distro snobbery.

Some distro's (and we all know which ones) have a reputation as 'advanced', which sort of translates that if you use such a distro, then you must be more 'advanced' than someone who doesn't. And here's where it sometimes gets ugly; some users of those particular distro's look down on others that don't; dude, you're using $distro which sucks - you'd be a lot better of using my advanced distro which doesn't suck.

Distro snobbery is one of the main things I hate about Linux and the Linux community.
And here's the rub; all distro's do pretty much the same thing. Some distro's do things differently. Does this make them better? Or more advanced?
No. It just makes them different.
Your 'advanced' distro doesn't do anything my 'newb' distro can't do just as well, so just get over it.

Once the Linux community stops attacking each other over which distro to use, (and other general in-fighting) maybe we can start encouraging more users away from Windows and onto Linux.

Just as long as they don't use Fedora.
Coz that would suck.

I thought gentoo ruled :confused:

Nope, Gentoo rocks, Slack rules ;)

That will never happen. To encorauge users from Windows and onto Linux there should be a way to develope commercial applications and just give away one binary that will work on any Linux system. But then Linux won't be as good as it is now, I like the free programs, it makes life easier in financial way's. Being able to distribute one binary for any Linux system, will never happen anyway.

First of all, notice that the people who impunge one distro vs. another have installed several of them. They are not casual users anymore. The experience of having used several different distros has changed them more than they realize.

Folks who expect users to switch from Windows to Linux sometimes seem to think that users will do so "because Linux is so much better." Is it better? To answer that question in a meaningful way you have to ask, "..to whom? Why?"

If the computer is simply an overglorified electric typewriter and message-machine, then the best solution is probably what often happens: status quo. A Windows machine, and probably one that has not been upgraded in years. A weird mixture of Windows machines, all in the same office, because you can't buy an older version of Windows with a new machine even if you wanted to -- and you'd probably want to, if you only could, which is precisely why you can't.

In an environment like that, Linux is simply another unwelcome change.

But in an environment where Linux is genuinely needed, it genuinely shines. It gleams and it glistens, and it gets used. Most of the Internet probably runs on Linux or Unix, and with good reason. Sites that run on Microsoft technology are easy to spot... they're slow. These are all situations where the difference between the two systems really made a difference, and the difference was really understood by the (highly technical) people who made the decision.

We have to realize, though, that many parts of the Windows world are not like that and never will be. Those people are unlikely to "convert." They don't even "upgrade!"

LMAO.....he he-----distro wars sounds like it might make a neat open source game........a scenario might go like this....

players spend all their waking moments trying to convert windows heathens to install/use a particular distro, and the one who converts the most heathens after 2 weeks or so wins........!!