Comments on: Top 5 Best Linux OS Distributions

By: Nilesh S Dhodad

Nilesh S Dhodad — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:50:54 +0000

why Redhat on fifth no

By: George Van Tuyl

George Van Tuyl — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:03:11 +0000

Having had now eleven years of linux experience I have come to the conclusion that the most reliable Linux distribution is hands down Slackware. Slackware is unaltered from the authors and has been the most reliable OS I have ever worked with over the last 11 years period. Having said that I will also note that Linux is my 23 operating system in my lifetime. yes I am over 60 years old and started with computers in 1968. Debian is the next most reliable Linux distribution but it alters the packages from the authors. Both Debian and Slackware are not for the novice computer user.

This article obviously focused on the most popular Linux OS distribution. In my opinion clowds the quest of the best Linux dristribution. After all what is best, is it the most popular or is it the most reliable. For me I choose reliability. If I upgrade a package or kernel I want that package or kernel to work. I do not want it to render my computer a desk weight as both Ubuntu, Fedora and OpenSuSE has.

If you are in business and demand a prime time (Reliable) OS that is consistantly dependable and trusted then you can not go wrong with RedHat and or CentOs.

Slackware is a great 32 bit OS but at times one requires a 64 bit operating system expecially when solving large complex problems cost effectively. Then you need RedHat or CentOS.

By: amer aref

amer aref — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:30:31 +0000

linux mint is getting better than ubuntu

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:57:23 +0000

You know, I didn’t really like Unity all that much when I first encountered it. I’ll say it — I HATED IT! …at first. I chose to work with Unity on Ubuntu for the sole purpose of learning how to use the interface efficiently. I have a VM of Fedora 15 with GNOME 3 so that I can do the same thing.

I think that we get comfortable with our GNOME 2.x and KDE 3.x until we are forced to evolve. This is the direction that the major DE’s are going, guys. I don’t have a problem using KDE 4.x, Unity, and I’m getting used to GNOME 3.x (though I think the developers still have a way to go). XFCE, LXDE, and any number of smaller WM’s are great alternatives to GNOME, KDE, and Unity.

Since using Unity, I’ve come to appreciate the feel and power of the Unity desktop. I’m almost embarrassed to say that I like it. It isn’t my favorite, but it is the most unique desktop experience I’ve had so far in Linux kernel OSs.

By: Krishnan

Krishnan — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:23:43 +0000

Xubuntu has taken over Ubuntu after the introduction of Unity framework.

By: PP

PP — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:54:14 +0000

@Dejf
Security holes always happened on outdated packages, this is why we have to keep our packages updated. PHP upgrade not only provide new features, but also provide bug and security fixes, same to other open-source packages.

By: Dejf

Dejf — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:04:19 +0000

@PP: New does not mean good, in many cases exactly the opposite. Php is a fun thing that is badly managed and putting newest on production server is generaly bad idea. I am far happier with outdated and bugfixed version.
The biggest advantage of redhat is compatibility with specific closed hw vendors who make only RHEL and SLES packages with binary kernel modules. That is the moment I use CentOS and pray loud.

@Ramesh Natarajan (8): Installing debian in mid90s happened to be far easier than to instal redhat in that time. I always hear these linux was hard – well yeah, it took me two days to start the X window for the first time, but after that it was again a piece of cake until these closed 3D drivers come.
To me making debian desktop reasonable in mid 90s was harder than with OS/2 Warp 4, but still easier than with windows. Yeah, basic desktop in widows takes just long time with next, next, next – but is that really a usable environment for anyone?

By: Dejf

Dejf — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:00:30 +0000

From all these only Debian passes as linux distro. All others have ported too many windows flaws that made them somewhere between linux and windows. While Debian gets ubuntized, it looses it’s advantages too.
Sadly, most linux distros try to do everything on their own – that is great if you want to use it as a shovel (like windows), but it gets terribly wrong as soon as any internal problem appears. Last one I got into today with mandriva (that is far more stable and user friendly than fedora) – after tranfer of system from drive to drive system keeps waiting two minutes for the root partititon it already found according to dmesg – kernel is probably not a reasonable source of hw information anymore. After this everything works as it did before. All redhat things from rh5 to latest centos fail install when they encounter a problem with install media – that is too absurd. I reported it in time of rh6 (even before getting first debian) and 10 years were not enough to add one if statement. Specific distro based preconfiguration options for Grub are big nightmare in many cases (at least ubuntu and mandriva).
This kind of problems is very non-unix by their nature, but they started to appear as companies try to make money of linux by porting windows problems to it to make it comparable. That is the same mistake Apple did in System 7.6 and every next to end up just as a bit better type of windows without any real advantage (eye candy is no advantage, it’s just eye candy). I used Apple system 7.5.5 until 2001 for all my office work no matter what linux/windows/OS2/whatever was on my PC.
So my list would be:
1. Debian
- not too selfservicing with great package management,
2. Slackware
- very basic anything allowing YOU to manage the system. Absence of basic management disables it for userfriendly desktop or loaded server.
3. Mandriva
- for destop of windows people. Even my mother installed it successfuly yesterday, while she was unable to with windows and redhat8 which is during the install basicaly the same like today’s fedora.
4. LFS
- to learn how the linux realy works
5. CentOS
- if you realy need redhat like distro for any reason.

By: PP

PP — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:03:57 +0000

Ubuntu is the best Desktop but not capable as a server.

RedHat is a liar, who pretend an high-quality server, but give you nothing, or maybe I forget to mention the outdated packages (e.g. php-5.1.6) Of you can pay it more($2000/yr) to get php 5.3.4.

FreeBSD — the best Internet server!! It beats all the other servers. Try it, and you won’t regret.

By: ezeze5000

ezeze5000 — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:07:36 +0000

I like to use Puppy Linux
Puppy is a small fast distro, great for fixing those messed up other than Linux distros