Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Well, is there anything preventing you from using Firefox with Debian, getting it from some other repository?
there is no repository for any Mozillia application in Debian or Ubuntu now. You have to install from source. Not a major issue, but still not the "Debian" way.
I thought Debian hadn't forked the Mozilla applications, but merely renamed them, due to Mozille placing (entirely justifiable and lawful) restrictions on the usage of their trademarks that the Debian Project (again justifiably and lawfully) did not wish to comply with.
it is a minor fork, but a fork none the less. Also the fork that debian uses is out of date.
If anyone is interested, there is an interesting thread in techpatterns about switching to FF permanently when using Debian. It's located here: http://techpatterns.com/forums/about1435.html
And back to the topic, the worst distro has got to be ... ta da .. The Ubuntu derived "Hanna Montana Distro". I downloaded it when my 4 year old granddaughter saw it, and thought, well, it's based on Ubuntu, it might be interesting. It was a stripped down Ubuntu, didn't configure anything automatically and for a 4 year old, made Linux look broken.
it is a minor fork, but a fork none the less. Also the fork that debian uses is out of date.
I stand corrected.
I think the being out-of-date is a consequence of Debian's extreme conservatism in its stable releases. They don't update software to new major versions. That's a good thing for certain uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbiesforever
The Debian Project people sound like stubborn purists. My impression.
If we didn't have stubborn purists, we wouldn't have GNU (which makes up much of the system we all annoy Richard Stallman by calling 'Linux'). We only have a Free Software operating system because of people who insist on the goal of a 100% Free Software system. (Of course, Debian and the FSF don't even agree on the definition of Free Software, but that's another matter). Once one starts making exceptions, one can never see a reason not to make an exception.
The Debian Project people sound like stubborn purists. My impression.
I do agree when I saw that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lleb
it is a minor fork, but a fork none the less. Also the fork that debian uses is out of date.
The main problem is that it's so slow. It looks like they just changed the name of an ancient version of Firefox and never updated it to 3.5, that looks better and is unbelievably fast compared to Iceweasel.
I really wish that I didn't have to put up with Flash and non-free media codecs every time, both because they are non-free and because they are difficult to install for that reason.
I am always so happy when someone embeds a video as an Ogg Theora file in <video> tags instead of using a Flash-based player.
there is no repository for any Mozillia application in Debian or Ubuntu now. You have to install from source. Not a major issue, but still not the "Debian" way.
Ubuntu? I can go grab Thunderbird from the repos right now!
Can't say i find it slow either.
Certainly the version in Stable is older,and will always be that way.
Quote:
The Debian Project people sound like stubborn purists. My impression.
Interesting attitude from someone running a distro that's a Debian derivative....
Quote:
If we didn't have stubborn purists, we wouldn't have GNU (which makes up much of the system we all annoy Richard Stallman by calling 'Linux')
Absolutely.
Quote:
I think the being out-of-date is a consequence of Debian's extreme conservatism in its stable releases
Correct.I'm sure you could also aim the same comment at Centos.
It's called Stable for a reason.
Quote:
The main problem is that it's so slow.
Have you actually tried Iceweasel recently?.
Quote:
Ubuntu? I can go grab Thunderbird from the repos right now!
Good for you.
Personally i find Icedove seems to do the job just fine.
I couldn't care less if Iceweasel/Icedove are a fork of the Mozilla products and are unbranded.If you are really that bothered about it:
Quote:
Not using an distro because of the browser?!
Just install FF and remove Iceweasel.
As for the worst distro,can't say i have tried one that i thought was really bad...yet.
Last edited by the trooper; 01-12-2010 at 02:33 PM.
I am lazy and would rather not quote everyone and explain, but I agree with The Trooper on his stance here.
If anyone are stubborn purists, it would Mozilla because of such restrictive policies. I know, they are fully open-source and all, but getting official branding for their applications is downright impossible.
Its simple really,if you don't like Iceweasel don't use it.End of.
I've got no axe to grind with Mozilla or FF.
I just don't think a web browser should influence your choice of distro.
Now i really think this thread has strayed a mile off topic.
So let's get more nominations in for the 'worst distro' question,before we incur the wrath of the moderators
Last edited by the trooper; 01-12-2010 at 03:12 PM.
Indeed, if this goes on it'll turn into a flamewar in no time. I'm going to try to prevent a flamewar from starting, so I'll be on topic.
My nomination for Worst Distro Ever goes to Slackware. I can't believe people still use that atrocity. Package management sucks -and- is composed of shell scripts as I remember it. Is it supposed to be funny? I'm not laughing. The installer is simply garbage (probably a consequence of poor package management) - some Slackware users speak out against the bloat of Ubuntu yet forget to mention that obtaining a "minimalistic" Slackware installation is highly difficult (assuming you've not done it before and already know exactly what packages you need/don't need). The Slackware website is incredibly out of date. The number of official packages is very low compared to other, much better, distributions. To me this just says one thing: lazy developers. You can't get off your arse to create at least a half-decent package management utility -nor- provide a decent amount of official packages? The "KISS" principle is not supposed to be an excuse for lame software, sorry. Look at CRUX and Arch Linux, they follow KISS and don't suck. How many developers does Slackware even have? 5? That's got "interesting and fun to work on" written all over it. Not. And what about the users? Only two kinds of people use Slackware: newbies who think using Slackware will make them "learn", "real men", "good with the ladies" and give them "geek street credibility"; and regular users who consider themselves advanced and enlightened, always replying to posts as this one saying "i've been using linux since 1993 so i'm not a newbie and i still like slackware" - if 17 years of using Linux has not taught you that Slackware is a disaster.. well.. `nuff said. Surely, from a technical point of view, there are probably much worse distributions out there.. but none of them can be accused of poisoning the minds of young children with LIES such as "once you go Slack you never go back" and "omg use Slackware and you will be elite, don't use neWbuntu". So you see? Slackware is not only a technically-challenged distribution, it is also pure Evil. That is what makes it the Worst.. Distro.. Ever.., in my humble opinion.
Last edited by carbonfiber; 01-12-2010 at 04:26 PM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.