Purchase Linux CDs / DVDs / Flash Drives at OSDisc.com

Welcome to Our Community

While Linux.org has been around for a while, we recently changed management and had to purge most of the content (including users). If you signed up before April 23rd please sign up again. Thanks!


Discussion in 'General Linux' started by lucasbytegenius, Nov 22, 2011.

  1. Anybody use PinguyOS? I really like it, it comes with a lot of stuff by default that I otherwise have to download (like DVD movie support) and it's definitely among my favorite Linux distros.

    What do you think of it?

    Here's their site: http://www.pinguyos.com/
    1 person likes this.
  2. I have never tried PinguyOS, but it looks nice. I have not heard much about it either.
  3. Karl

    Karl Guest

    I am using it. I'm actually running the 13.04 beta. I think this is exactly where Linux needs to go. Lets take a solid base (ubuntu) and build on in. Ubuntu is great for what it is and Linux Mint is close, but I like what what Pinguy does. It's only one guy but I think its a great distro. Pinguy is what finally got me off windows for most things. It really takes the pain out of getting tings set up. Some people may not want all the extras installed but I think it is nice not to have to do all the work myself.
    1 person likes this.
  4. flunwyc

    flunwyc Guest

    I disagree with ubuntu being a "solid base". The solid base behind ubuntu is debian - which is the epitome of "solid bases".

    ubuntu takes a snapshot of debian unstable (the development branch of Debian) and builds 6 monthly releases from this. These releases are released to a fixed schedule, whether bugs have been fixed or not. Since 2010 ubuntu's LTS releases have been based on the testing branch and this has been seen by many as a good thing - there is not a huge difference between testing and unstable however and it's really just a marketing stunt. In fact 10.04 LTS was one of the most "buggy on release" releases.
    1 person likes this.
  5. I like your view point. It seems that many people have differing views on Ubuntu and Debian stability. I feel that Ubuntu is more stable (yes, I have tried multiple versions of each OS). Maybe the hardware is a factor.
  6. flunwyc

    flunwyc Guest

    It may all come down to how you define stability.

    Debian is a stable release which takes roughly two years to finalise and does not have to meet release schedules. The stable release does not get version updates during the approx 3 year support cycle, so it is stable by definition.

    Ubuntu is based on Debian testing/unstable and releases every 6 months... ready or not.

    I fail to see how that makes ubuntu more stable than Debian.
    1 person likes this.
  7. I am not saying anyone is wrong or that any distro is in fact more or less stable. I am just stating that from my experience, Ubuntu is more stable, but that it must be due to the hardware we are each using for our "stable" distros. If you surf the web, you will see at least one person claim that any given distro is the most stable or more stable than another particular distro. Clearly, stability is only relative.
  8. flunwyc

    flunwyc Guest

    What you are saying doesn't make much sense. Ubuntu is based on Debian, in particular on the unstable branch, so I'm not entirely sure how you could consider ubuntu more stable that Debian stable...? It's much like saying "unstable is more stable than stable".

    This is why I said "define stability". To many stability means different things. In Debian terms "unstable" means "prone to change".

    So Arch, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc could all be considered more "unstable" distros. Debian, RHEL and Slackware would be considered more "stable". Continuing on from this, if you were to say that one of those first three were more "unstable" than the others, that would not be negative criticism.

    If you simply find ubuntu to be "better", that is certainly relative and would depend on a lot of factors.
    1 person likes this.
  9. True, Ubuntu is based on Debian. Notice that the word "based" is not the word "is". Ubuntu uses a different kernel. Perhaps it is the kernel that makes a distro more stable then the distro itself.

    I like the way you think. Your thinking gets me thinking. Thanks.
  10. flunwyc

    flunwyc Guest

    Debian's kernels are configured as a compromise between desktops and servers. In the past they used to be very much optimised for servers, so a lot of desktop users either built their own kernels or used third party kernels. The distro is as renowned for stability as it is very being "out of date" at release time.

    The kernel has nothing to do with stability as I defined it above.

    I can only assume you mean stability in that stuff was breaking, or there were crashes...? I've not encountered anything like that. It really depends on whether you were running stable, testing or unstable and what you were doing. The stable release is very solid and testing/unstable have a good reputation, which is why many users run those in preference to stable - but it's worth noting that Debian is not preconfigured out of the box. Desktop environments and other software are pretty much default upstream configuration. The distro gives a pretty basic starting point and it's up to the user to configure it from there. It's assumed that you have some knowledge of how to use a terminal and set things up to your liking and that you're willing to read documentation. This is because Debian is not designed for x86(64) desktop users, but pretty much anyone on anything and many different architectures. This is why the "desktop experience" never has and never will be polished to perfection, or even near. Despite this many users get on fine with it.

    I used Debian for about 4 years before switching to Slackware and found it to be rock solid, just like the latter.

    I found ubuntu on the other hand to be a 6 monthly round of breakage and idiotic and unnecessary UI redesigns and haven't used it since one of the 9.x versions. The obsession with image and marketing makes the distro unattractive to me.
    #10 flunwyc, Sep 19, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  11. These two statements clearly explain why we each have different view points. The x86-64 desktop architecture is exactly what I use on a daily basis. The stability does depend on what hardware we are using. Now, if we ran many different distros on the same hardware and tried different types of hardware, we would see why Linux users claim one distro to be more stable than another.

    Nice discussion. Thanks!
  12. Wow, I posted a reply on an unanswered, old thread and turned it into a productive, interesting discussion.
  13. flunwyc

    flunwyc Guest

    I would still say that your definition of stable differs to mine.

    Check how many arch types libc6 is built against and you'll get the idea: http://packages.debian.org/sid/libc6

    I run both amd64 and i386 and have not had stability problems in Debian.
    1 person likes this.
  14. Interesting.
  15. ryanvade

    ryanvade Guest

    Ubuntu, Debian, just build the kernel yourself.
  16. Karl

    Karl Guest

    I suppose what I was suggesting in my original post is Ubuntu became what it is for a reason. It has become very popular, although not with out its criticism and rightful so. Despite its popularity it feels incomplete. I like pinguy because it provides a reasonably good working system with all the little extras pre-installed and configured in many cases.
    1 person likes this.
  17. flunwyc

    flunwyc Guest

    Believe it or not GNU/Linux distributions are not supposed to be 100% working out of the box, nor is any OS, so I don't really understand the "incomplete" reference there. ubuntu has pretty large repositories, so it's just a case of finding what you want and installing it.

    Derivative distros are just customised distros where someone else has done the work for you, usually by selecting a particular DE and doing some preconfiguration and installing some extra (usually proprietary) software. Many of these derivatives we're seeing recently are based on ubuntu, which is itself a derivative.

    This of course makes it "easy" and the project team behind the OS will come up with some catchy marketing to reflect this. It's always "easy" until something breaks - then the derivative users are clogging up the Debian or ubuntu forums asking for help because the derivative forum isn't active enough and because their derivative is "the same" anyway... "if I had a dollar for every time I've seen that one"... well you get the picture...

    If you want to learn about how to set up, configure and administer any *nix system then you will have to do some things for yourself - this is even going to be the case with Debian derivatives and with distros like openSUSE and fedora. Even when you can do 90% via the gui, there will always be that 10% which will require the use of a terminal - this is seen as a failing of GNU/Linux when in fact it isn't. There is no GUI in existence which can fully replace the CLI on a *nix system and no serious, read 'sane'. developers are interested in producing one. This is because a) the CLI is the best and most powerful tool available and b) not all GNU/Linux boxes run X after all.

    The problem is of course that some people only recognise progress or advances if it's appearing on their monitor in high definition 3D with translucency and animated flashy spinny stuff...

    There is always a learning curve...

    If you take windows for example, in a few years time, installing windows 7/8 will be much the same as installing windows xp is today - a messy procedure involving downloading and installing tons of drivers, disabling useless services and features and downloading a gazillion updates. Many people judge GNU/Linux distros quite harshly in terms of ease of use and ease of install, but forget that they had to learn to install and set up windows - and that took years. Others I see criticising .e.g the installer, have never installed their windows OS in the first place.

    GNU/Linux was originally an OS for hackers by hackers and that's how it will probably remain despite the best efforts of some corporate entities to dumb it down in order to produce a product which can turn a profit. I see understanding the OS and making informed choices as a good thing.
    2 people like this.
  18. Karl

    Karl Guest

    [quote="flunwyc, post: 12916, member: 7831"
    GNU/Linux was originally an OS for hackers by hackers and that's how it will probably remain despite the best efforts of some corporate entities to dumb it down in order to produce a product which can turn a profit. I see understanding the OS and making informed choices as a good thing.[/quote] good point. exactly what Arch is for :). For someone like myself not having to set everything up is a good thing. It helps create an entry point to what is otherwise an advanced users market. If that isn't for you then obviously there is plenty of choice out there.
  19. flunwyc

    flunwyc Guest

    Well the jury is out as to what Arch is good for...

    I was thinking more of LFS, Slackware, maybe, Gentoo, Debian, etc...
  20. No matter which distro we prefer, we can all agree on one thing - Windows sucks, end of story.

    May the source be with you. (^u^)
    #20 DevynCJohnson, Sep 23, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2013

Share This Page