A Good Ol' Time with Linux
is about to come to an end.
I said, maybe a month after I started digging in to the different distributions, that I'd tested enough OSs and would set a couple up for work and be done with it.
What I meant by that is I would test a plethora more and delve into infamous timesinks Arch and Slackware. It's been rewarding, but after trying just about every desktop Linux distribution out there (not really, haha. holy shit, that'd be a lot), and after a lot of sloppy writing, I'm going to rein this in a little bit -- mostly because I'm out of interesting candidates -- but not before I do quick reviews of the ones I have tried recently or have tried to try (lookin' at you, CentOS).
A quick primer for myself: Salix, Slackware, Archbang, Arch. Then CentOS spin Stella and CentOS (neither of which's live CDs would boot), Scientific Linux 6, followed by Fedora, Debian Wheezy/Sid, a short (less than 1 hour) run of Mageia 1, and, finally, Semplice.
Damn, I have a compulsive disorder. No. Really.
My favorites? Mint 12 has stayed strong throughout. Fuduntu, as well. Salix and Slackware are lovely distros.
Ubuntu 11.1 and Fedora 16 both fell short of being all-around "good" for me because of their shortcomings. Ubuntu was unresponsive on the little lappy and still slow on the monster big head lappy. Kind of unacceptable, considering the specs. Fedora, while fast, felt unpolished. Being spoiled by Mint's highly tweaked Gnome 3, Fedora's vanilla presentation of it, complete without right clicks and touchpad tap clicks, seemed unpolished.
--- Edit: Fedora was quite solid, despite feeling rough. If the support period were longer, we might see more really good derivatives, since it seems to run quite light, especially for such a full-featured system. As it is, Fuduntu's kind of the one. (I didn't enjoy Kororaa (but then again, Slackware and Porteus had about the only KDE environments I liked. Man, that logo, with the sharp looking gears, annoys me.)) As it stands, I think oppenSuSE, of the big distributions, has about the best release cycle for derivatives, being stable and powerful. But whatever bad mojo it has with Novell backing it probably keeps developers away. ---
Uncexpectedly good: Semplice. Most of the above was written in that environment. Semplice feels like Crunchbang done right. While I said previously that Archbang did Crunchbang better than Crunchbang, well Semplice is a take on the Crunchbang theme that comes together much more elegantly because the developers put a lot of thought into making things semplice. The menu updates automatically, the tint2 configurations -- if indeed that's what it uses -- are more unobtrusive, the kernel firmware is more up to date (read: didn't have to waste time installing Realtek crap), etc. I liked it a lot and will be keeping it around for rescue operations and just to tinker with Debian repositories.
Even more unexpectedly good: Ubuntu 12.04 Beta! This thing was a pain in the ass to install, but as I type in it now, it is a good experience. I actually like it more than Mint 12, though I'm sure Mint 13 will have something to say about that. A couple of things like the menu scroll sensitivity haven't been worked out, and booting stalled the first couple of times, but it is a good revamp of Ubuntu. I am probably going to use this instead of Mint LTS, provided my small lappy runs it.
Expectedly good: Scientific Linux. CentOS and Stella just would not boot for me. I downloaded different iterations of SL and CentOS and only the SL Live DVD booted for me, and then only on the large laptop. I get a kernel panic on the 1201t, which I think comes from unsupported hardware. (Someone on the CentOS forums had similar problems with the 1215b.) I'll chalk that up as a lost cause for now.
But SL booted! And the Gnome 2 desktop is great. Smooth and snappy. Click tap will have to be edited into the auto start, but it's hard the beat the combination of stability, power, and low system requirements.
High hopes -- dashed: Scrambled, really. I was waiting for Mageia 2, but figured I ought to try 1. It just doesn't seem very up to date. The Live CDs are only available in 32 bit and my wireless card wasn't picked up. The installer also had a somewhat cramped and difficult to decipher design. 2 has been getting rave reviews, though I doubt I'll give it more than a quick look when it's released, because Ubuntu Precise is just that good. Again, system requirements will make the difference.
Salix and Slackware, Salix and Slackware.... How do I say, despite their rather idiosyncratic design philosophies, I am impressed by the results. I think the reason I like them is similar to the reason I like Fuduntu. Small projects with lots of personality with the pieces held together in the mind of one subgenius (I'll allow myself that usage) benevolent dictator for life. In Fuduntu's case: Fewt and his oddball humor, and Patrick Volkerding. (If he's half as charismatic as his name.... (Why do I want to make a German joke here? Something about half as long as Das Kapital and only twice as funny....)
Nothing is as stable as Slackware. It's the only system I used that didn't glitch in some way. Most of these systems had outright bugs or performance hiccups. Mint has occasional graphical glitches, Fuduntu's default repos give me trouble, Debian's installer is overly rigid in demanding a CD, but Slackware just does its thing. Even Salix had kernel crashes from plugging in USB keys (before an update).
Slackware abides.
And for that, I'll keep using it.










