what's the hardest to use distro?

goossen · 09-23-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixellany

I have met a lot of strange people on buses, but never another Linux nut.....

Why would kernel building be different on Debian? A kernel is a kernel. any kernel can have custom features compiled in. Certainly it is true that many distros have their own flavor of kernel, but the compilation process is the same.

The compilation process is the same, the installation may differ. e.g.: RPM, DEB, classic way.

salasi · 09-23-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rottingdead

Hahahaha, yeah, 2003, it's a wonder this topic hasn't been deleted yet.

Topics (threads) don't get deleted; they stay around forever (in internet time) to help others with similar problems, although they may get closed off, if a mod decides that the conversation serves no useful purpose, and is just a waste of bits. Maybe it is a little surprising, but this thread might have been closed off for 'necroposting' but it hasn't happened, yet.

Incidentally, if anyone really does want a difficult-to-use distro, I could introduce a few thousand random changes into Gentoo to turn it into an unstable load of junk; all the random crashes are going to make it hard to use. OTOH, I suppose I could also do something similar with Ubuntu, although that probably won't give the same level of satisfaction...after all, who wants to tell their mates that they've succeeded in using UnUbuntu, and its really hard. that's not going to give anyone any credibility.

rottingdead · 09-23-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salasi

Topics (threads) don't get deleted; they stay around forever (in internet time) to help others with similar problems, although they may get closed off, if a mod decides that the conversation serves no useful purpose, and is just a waste of bits. Maybe it is a little surprising, but this thread might have been closed off for 'necroposting' but it hasn't happened, yet.

Incidentally, if anyone really does want a difficult-to-use distro, I could introduce a few thousand random changes into Gentoo to turn it into an unstable load of junk; all the random crashes are going to make it hard to use. OTOH, I suppose I could also do something similar with Ubuntu, although that probably won't give the same level of satisfaction...after all, who wants to tell their mates that they've succeeded in using UnUbuntu, and its really hard. that's not going to give anyone any credibility.

I've been using Arch Linux and it's been a good system, since we want to get into saying which ditros are crap, haven't really ran into any serious problems with Arch Linx yet. =P.

salasi · 09-24-2011, 06:10 AM

My point was that people seem to be using 'hard to use' as a synonym for something else like 'great learning opportunity', 'good for the Linux karma' or 'tutor on the Linux system' and it really isn't.

I could create a system that is hard to use, but which was only good for giving you the screen headbutting practice that you might be missing after giving up other operating systems. That wouldn't make it a great tutor, necessarily. If you want to know which is the best system for learning something, ask about that, don't ask about something different and hope that the answer will be good for a different problem (in a nice new thread, preferably, as this is a little beyond its sell by date). After all, if you wanted to know how to secure a webserver, you wouldn't ask about securing a motorcycle and assume that the same answer will apply, even though some of the lessons might have some carry-through.

zk1234 · 09-25-2011, 04:20 PM

Slackware is "the hardest" for beginners because it lacks a package manger that is able to follow dependencies.
Slackware is "the easiest" for developers because it lacks a package manger that is able to follow dependencies (so developers can do whatever they want).

rottingdead · 09-25-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zk1234

Slackware is "the hardest" for beginners because it lacks a package manger that is able to follow dependencies.
Slackware is "the easiest" for developers because it lacks a package manger that is able to follow dependencies (so developers can do whatever they want).

Yeah, you might be right there, I found Gentoo a little easier than I expected. I tried Slackware, and didn't have any luck, didn't really have any luck in FreeBSD neither, so far, my luck has been in Arch, and so far Gentoo, don't even have Arch anymore, got rid of it when I installed my currently installed OS(Gentoo), =).

sundialsvcs · 09-26-2011, 10:21 AM

... whichever one you don't understand ...

onebuck · 09-26-2011, 05:55 PM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by zk1234

Slackware is "the hardest" for beginners because it lacks a package manger that is able to follow dependencies.
Slackware is "the easiest" for developers because it lacks a package manger that is able to follow dependencies (so developers can do whatever they want).

And you speak of this from experiences using Slackware?

ramkatral · 09-26-2011, 07:24 PM

I personally find that Slackware is a highly tuned, streamlined, quickly responsive, precision piece of engineering. It responds near flawlessly to everything I put it through. Therefore... I find Slackware to be the easiest. For me, all that bloated junk on some of the other, more mainstream, distros makes it more difficult to operate.

ReaperX7 · 09-26-2011, 08:31 PM

Same here. After about a month with Slackware I learned pretty much everything I needed to know. I still can not use Debian, Red Hat, and Gentoo and all their derivative clones because the APT system and Portage do too much that you don't see or understand what's going on.

zk1234 · 09-27-2011, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onebuck

Hi,

And you speak of this from experiences using Slackware?

Yes, I do. And currently Slackware helps me to develop www.4mlinux.com. The advantage of using Slackware is that when I install any package , no additional packages are installed (because the system does not care about the dependencies). Exactly the same reason causes that Slackware can be difficult for beginners...

onebuck · 09-27-2011, 09:13 AM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by zk1234

Yes, I do. And currently Slackware helps me to develop www.4mlinux.com. The advantage of using Slackware is that when I install any package , no additional packages are installed (because the system does not care about the dependencies). Exactly the same reason causes that Slackware can be difficult for beginners...

Quote:

Originally Posted by zk1234

Slackware is "the hardest" for beginners because it lacks a package manger that is able to follow dependencies.
Slackware is "the easiest" for developers because it lacks a package manger that is able to follow dependencies (so developers can do whatever they want).

Then you should understand that dependency is not a problem for a newbie that follows the recommendation of PV to do a Full install. Slackware has several good package management tools for a user to learn and to use.

I do agree with the developer statement but I would extend that to include experienced Slackware users. One does not need to be a developer to enhance or modify their system to suit their needs when using Slackware.

As to your statement about 'any packages', I would clarify that a bit by saying "any Slackware package". Newbies do have Slackbuilds to acquire Slackware packages. Sure a little more work but once the user understands the technique to download the Slackbuild script, source and modify to suit then one can have packages to install without the worry of dependency.

By your statements you are making things out as being difficult for a newbie. A fallacy that should not be presented since you will only be feeding the rumor mills: "About how Slackware is so hard to use". When it is not hard to use when one learns to read the support documentation and text supplied with Slackware. Why close doors when we should provide welcoming open doors to a potential new user?

zk1234 · 09-27-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onebuck

Hi,

Then you should understand that dependency is not a problem for a newbie that follows the recommendation of PV to do a Full install. Slackware has several good package management tools for a user to learn and to use.

I do agree with the developer statement but I would extend that to include experienced Slackware users. One does not need to be a developer to enhance or modify their system to suit their needs when using Slackware.

As to your statement about 'any packages', I would clarify that a bit by saying "any Slackware package". Newbies do have Slackbuilds to acquire Slackware packages. Sure a little more work but once the user understands the technique to download the Slackbuild script, source and modify to suit then one can have packages to install without the worry of dependency.

By your statements you are making things out as being difficult for a newbie. A fallacy that should not be presented since you will only be feeding the rumor mills: "About how Slackware is so hard to use". When it is not hard to use when one learns to read the support documentation and text supplied with Slackware. Why close doors when we should provide welcoming open doors to a potential new user?

I am under the impression that we both like Slackware :-) This used to be my first Linux when I was several years younger, so you do not have to convince me... But I do think that Slackware is ideal for more ambitious newbies who wants to learn Linux. If a beginner needs an easy to use Linux, I would recommend, for example, Ubuntu (and he/she will learn Ubuntu, and not Linux). And it has nothing to do with rumoring...

onebuck · 09-27-2011, 03:14 PM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by zk1234

I am under the impression that we both like Slackware :-) This used to be my first Linux when I was several years younger, so you do not have to convince me... But I do think that Slackware is ideal for more ambitious newbies who wants to learn Linux. If a beginner needs an easy to use Linux, I would recommend, for example, Ubuntu (and he/she will learn Ubuntu, and not Linux). And it has nothing to do with rumoring...

As to rumors, it does depend on how we as users reflect things to the public. Not just here at LQ either. I would first lay things out to a newbie and hopefully they would accept the challenge to learn a great Gnu/Linux. I just suggested not to feed the rumor mills.

You would be surprised as to who actually surfs or lurks here at LQ.

zk1234 · 09-27-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onebuck

Hi,

As to rumors, it does depend on how we as users reflect things to the public. Not just here at LQ either. I would first lay things out to a newbie and hopefully they would accept the challenge to learn a great Gnu/Linux. I just suggested not to feed the rumor mills.

You would be surprised as to who actually surfs or lurks here at LQ.

OK. You're right, especially when you speak about a full install. If one will install FULL Slackware (I mean all the packages) , he/she will have a ready-to-use, user friendly system. For example: you do not have to worry how to play videoDVDs. Just start Xine or MPlayer and enjoy you favorite film. No need to look for additional codecs, which may be be a problem in Ubuntu...