Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
(Log in to post comments)
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 15:22 UTC (Mon) by MisterIO (subscriber, #36192) [Link]
CentOS for the desktop and not Debian?
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 15:35 UTC (Mon) by avtechmjc (subscriber, #50477) [Link]
No company is going to install Debian when Ubuntu is available...
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 15:50 UTC (Mon) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
That's simply not true, and our base of 40+ machines happily running Debian is a perfect example. We know Debian's direction and transparency, and have no clue what additional random profit-maximizing gimmicks or quick package hacks will be made at the whim of Shuttleworth (one can't say Ubuntu, because in this case it's a wholly owned vanity distribution). We also have no desire to clean up the pieces afterwards.
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 17:41 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]
No company is going to install Debian when Ubuntu is available...
That's not true. We use Debian on our servers. Our technical people also use Debian. We use Ubuntu for the sales guys. Our Ubuntu PCs basically have nothing important on them; we can blow them away and rebuild a fresh one easily. All the important directories are NFS-mounted.
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 17:54 UTC (Mon) by superstoned (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
No company is going to install Red Hat or CentOS with Fedora available?!?
CentOS vs. Fedora
Posted May 5, 2008 21:04 UTC (Mon) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]
Depends on what you want. If you want a bleeding edge desktop, go for Fedora. If you want a longer support cycle and less changes... and more stability... go for CentOS / RHEL. Because you want the later more on a server, CentOS / RHEL is a better choice for servers.
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 18:22 UTC (Mon) by mgb (subscriber, #3226) [Link]
We have only one desktop with hardware that can run Debian Stable. Some of our desktops will run on Debian Testing but most need a mixture of Debian Testing and Debian Unstable. Debian Testing is so volatile that Debian on the desktop has become a significant admin time sink. I don't like some of Ubuntu's quirks and the limited support for Universe is an issue but we're seriously thinking of switching our desktops to Ubuntu. If Debian is to be relevant on the desktop they're going to have to fast track new hardware support - particularly xserver-xorg and linux-image - into Stable updates. Debian is starting to get a rep for only running on old hardware.
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 18:54 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
backports.org? BTW: we had better luck with Etch than with CentOS 5.1 with new hardware here.
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 19:23 UTC (Mon) by mgb (subscriber, #3226) [Link]
backports.org has no xorg or xserver-xorg updates. backports.org updates linux-image-2.6 from 2.6.18 to 2.6.22 but our Thinkpad T61's need 2.6.24 (or a patched kernel). Hence we need to using Testing or a Testing/Unstable mix.
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 20:29 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
I believe backports.org already has 2.6.24 . Also try: http://mirror.home-dn.net/d-i/
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 19:19 UTC (Mon) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]
You shouldn't use absolutes like that.. with 6 billion people in the world... someone is going to base their company desktop structure on Debian, Slackware, gNewSense, or some distribution that their next door neighbors cousin writes in their spare time. That is the nature of distributions...
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 5, 2008 19:51 UTC (Mon) by avtechmjc (subscriber, #50477) [Link]
OK... I'll de-assert. Some companies will use Debian :-)
Debian vs. Ubuntu?
Posted May 5, 2008 21:01 UTC (Mon) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]
I'd say that on the desktop that is possibly true... but on servers, I'd say the reverse is the case... Debian is much more proven on the server than Ubuntu is... hands down. I'm a RHEL / CentOS / Fedora person myself.
Ubuntu 8.04
Posted May 5, 2008 16:40 UTC (Mon) by jabby (guest, #2648) [Link]
The original article got it wrong everywhere, but there's no reason to duplicate the error here in the LWN blurb... It's "8.04" not "8.4". People are already confused about the Ubuntu version numbering... let's not deprive them of this subtle clue. :o)
Ubuntu 8.04
Posted May 5, 2008 16:50 UTC (Mon) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> The original article got it wrong everywhere, but there's no reason to > duplicate the error here in the LWN blurb... It's "8.04" not "8.4". You make a good point, fixed now, thanks! jake
Ubuntu 8.04
Posted May 5, 2008 20:10 UTC (Mon) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]
As it's just <year>.<month>, does it really matter whether the month is prefixed with a zero or not (04 and 4 are both April....)?
Ubuntu 8.04
Posted May 5, 2008 21:46 UTC (Mon) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link]
> As it's just <year>.<month>, does it really matter whether the month is > prefixed with a zero or not (04 and 4 are both April....)? For some counting methods, 8.4 > 8.10 . So, yes, some times, it really matters. :-)
Ubuntu 8.04
Posted May 5, 2008 21:57 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
If you use an approach to version numbers that says that 8.4 > 8.10, you force both RPM-based and .deb-based distributions to use epochs to tell the package manager that 8.4 is newer. So you would be well advised not to do this: don't interpret version numbers as rational numbers, the standard convention is to treat them as sequences of integers, lexicographically sorted.
Ubuntu 8.04
Posted May 6, 2008 2:37 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]
The problem here is with people rather than computers. The version numbers look like normal decimal numbers, and people know that 8.4 is greater than 8.10. By using 8.04 instead, the ambiguity goes away.
Ubuntu 8.04
Posted May 6, 2008 9:32 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]
IMHO the problem is someone defining x.1x > x.2 in the first place...
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)
Posted May 8, 2008 14:19 UTC (Thu) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link]
So Fedora 9 is for "the truly stalwart", but Ubuntu 8.04 (which wasn't yet released at the time of the review) is fine? So, no bias there then. It would have been nice if he understood what CentOS was and where it came from, too...