Linux pie.

[Mint]

What are the advantages that certain Linux versions have over others? Could anyone provide a break down/review of some of the more popular versions of Linux such as: Mandrake, RedHat, Slackware .... or suggest where I could find them? Also please post what version you use and what you like and/or don't like about it.

[Mazer]

I don't really know the differences since I've only used one distro but
http://www.linuxiso.org/ should help.

I use Mandrake10 because it's supposed to be easy to learn. And it is. Installation was very simple. I can't think of anything I like that's specific to this distribution because I have nothing else to compare it to, and same goes for dislikes.

[Mint]

Yeah, the first linux I installed on my machine was Mandrake, but that was back in the day. I'm going to install it again but I don't know which one to choose.

Edit type thing: Oh and as for the site I've been using it since last night, but couldn't come to a decision - I still can't make up my mind.

[rizzix]

well.. go for Gentoo if you want the best non-commercial linux. if you want a commercial flavour then SUSE is the best.

[Mint]

What advantages does Gentoo have over other distributions?
I'm actualy planning on getting Mandrake again, that or Slackware. But I think I'm gonna go with Mandrake this time. Does anyone know if that game (I forgot what it was called) in which you are Tux and you slide down slopes collecting fish is on the new Mandrake 10? I know the University o' Waterloo had some part in it's developement.

[rizzix]

Gentoo is the most customizable flavour of linux. It has support for the number of nvidia graphics cards and creative sound cards.. this driver support is rare to find in other non-commercial distros. Besides great support it is always built from source, thus you get the most optimised possible installation of linux on your comp. But there are disadvantages: its not easy installing it.. i recommend doing a full read-through of its installtion guide before installing... and it "could" be the slowes thing you've ever installed in your life. But then again you have the choice: complete source build.. partial source build... and a ...even less of a source build.

SuSE is one great commercail flavour of linux.. I'd go with SuSE over gentoo only because of its java support. To find "good" java support in most linux is very rare.. cuz most non-commercial flavours dont support non-gnu-opensource-licensed apps like Sun's jvm. Instead most of these distros come out with the GNU's java vm. which isin't bad.. but is far behind the java lineage. SuSE also looks good.. and feels good. It's a great distro as a server-side OS, a developer platform or even as a daily worksation os. Most importantly it has great support from most commercial giants: IBM, Sun, Oracle... etc

[rizzix]

IMHO Mandrake sux. RedHat is far better. But if your into simplicity: Linspire

[Mazer]

What do you think sucks about mandrake? And what makes red hat better?

[SuperGenius]

I was reading about debian, and I realized I was in way over my head, so I decided to look at mandrake because it seems simpler.

But. at [url]linuxiso.org[/url] there are 3 discs for a i586 comp? do I need all three?

[wtd]

Fedora Core 2 rocks my world.

[rizzix]

Mazer wrote:

What do you think sucks about mandrake? And what makes red hat better?

mandrake is basically redhat with an easier-to-use interface designed for simplicity. the thing is.. its not a good-looking os at all.. its not so easy to use either as compared to other distros like SUSE or Linspire or even redhat for that matter.

mandrake is as compatible as redhat gets.. so i dont see the point of having an os that is exactly simililar to anther os but only differing in looks. also mandrakes is not given as much recognition as RedHat, Linspre or SuSE distros. There really is no point in going for a distro that is basically a parallel fork running against a more dominant distro on the linux market: redhat

and because of this pointlessness: its sux. heh.

[Mint]

rizzix wrote:

Mazer wrote:

What do you think sucks about mandrake? And what makes red hat better?

mandrake is basically redhat with an easier-to-use interface designed for simplicity. the thing is.. its not a good-looking os at all.. its not so easy to use either as compared to other distros like SUSE or Linspire or even redhat for that matter.

mandrake is as compatible as redhat gets.. so i dont see the point of having an os that is exactly simililar to anther os but only differing in looks. also mandrakes is not given as much recognition as RedHat, Linspre or SuSE distros. There really is no point in going for a distro that is basically a parallel fork running against a more dominant distro on the linux market: redhat

and because of this pointlessness: its sux. heh.

But then again its non-commercial so that's a plus.

[rizzix]

wait actually i didn;t realise until now.. there actually may be one very impotant point that would make mandrake an os better than redhat: you see.. redhat dosen't come with video playback support... no dvd playback support.. if mandrake come packaged with this.. i guess its your best redhat-based linux distro out there. of course this dosen;t mean you can't get this playback support installed in redhat.. just that its a real pain in the neck... believe me.. i tried it.

[rizzix]

oh and redhat is free too you know: http://fedora.redhat.com/download/
yep the fedora project.. the only problem with this.. no support.

[Mint]

Yeah I know, awell. I don't think that the majority of the people that would be installing Linux would be likely to call or need support. So it's not any major loss.