What OS do you use?

[hotaru]

and you can use linux binaries, [on FreeBSD] too...

It is also reported that in some situations, Linux binaries perform better on FreeBSD than they do under Linux.

But FreeBSD only has support for Linux kernel 2.4.2, Linux is now up to 2.6.24

Code: Select all

hotaru@olorin$ uname -rs                                                  < ~ >
FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE-p6
hotaru@olorin$ sysctl compat.linux.osrelease                              < ~ >
compat.linux.osrelease: 2.6.16
hotaru@olorin$ /usr/compat/linux/bin/uname -rs                            < ~ >
Linux 2.6.16

[10nitro]

and you can use linux binaries, [on FreeBSD] too...

It is also reported that in some situations, Linux binaries perform better on FreeBSD than they do under Linux.

But FreeBSD only has support for Linux kernel 2.4.2, Linux is now up to 2.6.24

Code: Select all

hotaru@olorin$ uname -rs                                                  < ~ >
FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE-p6 GENERIC
hotaru@olorin$ sysctl compat.linux.osrelease                              < ~ >
compat.linux.osrelease: 2.6.16
hotaru@olorin$ /usr/compat/linux/bin/uname -rs                            < ~ >
Linux 2.6.16

Really? I would have sworn...

[AttackAttack]

I currently use Vista (as it came with my laptop), but I'm downloading Fedora 10. The torrent is at 13.6%, so maybe next week I'll be using it. I would've got it while I still had cable internet, but I didn't have a DVD to burn it to. Now, I do. But with satellite internet. Booo.

Anyway, the reason I decided to agonize over Fedora, as opposed to using Ubuntu's Wubi installer, is simple: better community. Unlike Ubuntu, which are the Apple Computers of Linux to me, Fedora's community doesn't just use the OS, they help build it. That's simply not true about Ubuntu. Debian branches are typically targeted at end-users, people who see Linux at another company who makes OS's, not actual Linux/computer enthusiasts (a demographic which I am quickly joining). It also affects the way the OS is built, and Fedora is built with tools to make it better as well as function to make it still worth while. Also, it's sponsored by Red Hat. Red Hat is highly compatible with everything Linux, is built to "just work", has intelligent end-users in mind, and therefore appeals to my admittedly elitist tastes. If I can get that in a free, community based version, then I'm freaking set.

Firstly: WHY do all GNU/Linux users default to Ubuntu? It's full of flaws. I don't even see it as a geek toy, more of a newbie's way in to the GNU/Linux world. I've always used Fedora. It's fast. It's nice. It's cutting-edge, but stable at the same time.

You read my mind, sir.

I managed to set up PCLinuxOS completely without having to resort to the terminal window once. I ended up with full 3d effects (they're REALLY COOL these days! Has anyone else seen these?) and a fully set up 3d driver, all without having to resort to the command line.

That really impressed me. Certain things were taken care of that haven't been in the past. For example, it was an insane fight to get the proprietary nvidia driver working in Mandrake a few years ago, because the RPM didn't alter your XF86Config for you. There's a bunch of editing you've got to do yourself, which was a pain in the ass. Here, I just installed it through synaptic, and it told me to restart my X session. Bang. Fixed. Upon rebooting, it asked me about what 3d options I wanted to use.

I agree that wireless is touch-and-go. However, you also have to realize that just because something didn't work a few years ago doesn't mean it still sucks. Linux is treating years like decades, and even though some distros are inherently flawed, others are bounding away into new and great things while still fixing bugs and flaws, something that neither Microsoft nor Apple can claim.

[scarecrovv]

I currently use Vista (as it came with my laptop), but I'm downloading Fedora 10. The torrent is at 13.6%, so maybe next week I'll be using it. I would've got it while I still had cable internet, but I didn't have a DVD to burn it to. Now, I do. But with satellite internet. Booo.

Anyway, the reason I decided to agonize over Fedora, as opposed to using Ubuntu's Wubi installer, is simple: better community. Unlike Ubuntu, which are the Apple Computers of Linux to me, Fedora's community doesn't just use the OS, they help build it. That's simply not true about Ubuntu. Debian branches are typically targeted at end-users, people who see Linux at another company who makes OS's, not actual Linux/computer enthusiasts (a demographic which I am quickly joining). It also affects the way the OS is built, and Fedora is built with tools to make it better as well as function to make it still worth while. Also, it's sponsored by Red Hat. Red Hat is highly compatible with everything Linux, is built to "just work", has intelligent end-users in mind, and therefore appeals to my admittedly elitist tastes. If I can get that in a free, community based version, then I'm freaking set.

Firstly: WHY do all GNU/Linux users default to Ubuntu? It's full of flaws. I don't even see it as a geek toy, more of a newbie's way in to the GNU/Linux world. I've always used Fedora. It's fast. It's nice. It's cutting-edge, but stable at the same time.

You read my mind, sir.

Good to see more Fedora users around. I agree with everything you said, except the agonizing part. Everything I need works for me without much trouble under Fedora. It's gotten to the point where I don't need to dual boot my primary computer with XP (though I still run XP regularly on my old computer to play a couple of games that don't have Linux versions). If I'm lucky, I'll be able to escape Microsoft entirely within the next few years.

[AttackAttack]

Good to see more Fedora users around. I agree with everything you said, except the agonizing part. Everything I need works for me without much trouble under Fedora. It's gotten to the point where I don't need to dual boot my primary computer with XP (though I still run XP regularly on my old computer to play a couple of games that don't have Linux versions). If I'm lucky, I'll be able to escape Microsoft entirely within the next few years.

"Agonize" refers to downloading the image file. And gaming is one thing that'll probably keep me tethered to Windows until the games I play (mostly MMOs) are ported to Linux. Wine just doesn't work well, especially on a low-resource laptop that's dual booting along side Vista (yikes). I don't think it'll be too long, though.

[headprogrammingczar]

Good to see more Fedora users around. I agree with everything you said, except the agonizing part. Everything I need works for me without much trouble under Fedora. It's gotten to the point where I don't need to dual boot my primary computer with XP (though I still run XP regularly on my old computer to play a couple of games that don't have Linux versions). If I'm lucky, I'll be able to escape Microsoft entirely within the next few years.

"Agonize" refers to downloading the image file. And gaming is one thing that'll probably keep me tethered to Windows until the games I play (mostly MMOs) are ported to Linux. Wine just doesn't work well, especially on a low-resource laptop that's dual booting along side Vista (yikes). I don't think it'll be too long, though.

You could save space by VMing Vista...but then you would have no games...

[DesertEagle]

I use Ubuntu for most my computing needs and Windows XP for work on AutoCAD. Great combination if you ask me.

[DesertEagle]

Use what ever serves your needs. I went through linux distros like socks before I settled with Ubuntu. I really don't understand why people need to boast their preferred distro. I prefer it over Windows and I disliked having to swim though config files (arch), resolving dependencies (fedora 9) and openSUSE 9 was nice but it had horrible hardware support.

Debian was pretty good but I like Ubuntu's quick release cycle.

[edwford]

I use 3/4 (that's three slash four, not three quarters ) different OS's

Ubuntu 8.10 & Windows XP SP3 Dualbooted on a desktop (XP default, but Desktop is 75% of the time used for gaming, if it isn't then Ubuntu.) I personally dislike using Microsoft products though. (Shocking that )

OSX 10.4 & Ubuntu 8.10 on my Macbook. I love them both, although I generally find OSX nicer to use. Simple when it needs to be, and complex enough when it needs to be. But Ubuntu gives the best audio output for me for some reason (after a quite a bit of tweaking). Which is nice as I often end up using my Macbook as a portable mp3 player, connecting it to my amplifier and such.

Still want to try Fedora, or something other than Ubuntu in the Linux department. Any suggestions or recommendations?

[Berengal]

Still want to try Fedora, or something other than Ubuntu in the Linux department. Any suggestions or recommendations?

I just switched from Kubuntu to Arch. It's more of an experiment brought on by boredom, but I might switch to it permanently because, for me at least, it Just Works even better than ubuntu ever did. Sure, installing ubuntu was easier and it only takes me about half an hour to get from downloading unetbootin to logging onto a working system (that's time estimate includes downloading everything from ftp), but there'd always be some little quirk that I didn't quite know how to iron out, and fixing it was about equivalent to fixing all the little things in windows: full of magic voodoo incantations and gestures.

Installing Arch was sort of easy too, at least for me with at least a little knowledge of linux internals, and there's a nice online wiki that helps you do most of the work, but it's still not ubuntu by a longshot. When the wiki declares "Congratulations! You've installed Arch!" all you've got is the kernel, coreutils and pacman, and there's a prompt asking you to log in on your 80x27 character display. Okay, so you're only about halfway down the wikipage at that point, but still...
What comes next is usually the hairy stuff, but at least for me it was surprisingly simple. Setting the locale, weird keyboard mappings, installing X... all this is easily done with the help of the wiki, and it gives you sufficient insight to know where to start poking when things go wrong (it's a computer. Things DO go wrong.) All in all, Arch just works better than ubuntu ever did for me. It has yet to prove itself in the long haul, but at least things haven't started to fall apart yet.
To use the car analogy, Ubuntu is a car that works when you get it, but tuning it is hard because you don't know exactly how it works, while Arch is a kit car with comprehensive assembly instructions.

[edwford]

Still want to try Fedora, or something other than Ubuntu in the Linux department. Any suggestions or recommendations?

I just switched from Kubuntu to Arch. It's more of an experiment brought on by boredom, but I might switch to it permanently because, for me at least, it Just Works even better than ubuntu ever did. Sure, installing ubuntu was easier and it only takes me about half an hour to get from downloading unetbootin to logging onto a working system (that's time estimate includes downloading everything from ftp), but there'd always be some little quirk that I didn't quite know how to iron out, and fixing it was about equivalent to fixing all the little things in windows: full of magic voodoo incantations and gestures.

Installing Arch was sort of easy too, at least for me with at least a little knowledge of linux internals, and there's a nice online wiki that helps you do most of the work, but it's still not ubuntu by a longshot. When the wiki declares "Congratulations! You've installed Arch!" all you've got is the kernel, coreutils and pacman, and there's a prompt asking you to log in on your 80x27 character display. Okay, so you're only about halfway down the wikipage at that point, but still...
What comes next is usually the hairy stuff, but at least for me it was surprisingly simple. Setting the locale, weird keyboard mappings, installing X... all this is easily done with the help of the wiki, and it gives you sufficient insight to know where to start poking when things go wrong (it's a computer. Things DO go wrong.) All in all, Arch just works better than ubuntu ever did for me. It has yet to prove itself in the long haul, but at least things haven't started to fall apart yet.
To use the car analogy, Ubuntu is a car that works when you get it, but tuning it is hard because you don't know exactly how it works, while Arch is a kit car with comprehensive assembly instructions.

Thanks for the suggestions there. I'm still unsure as to what my next step will be. But I hadn't considered Arch previously, but after doing some research on it, it seems like a pretty good distro and I'm seriously considering it . I'm also used to Gnome, and wanting to try KDE perhaps (having only used it for <1 hour before, and I didn't really get the hang of it). I'm just used to Ubuntu and Gnome with it's active, friendly user base. I feel I've slowly lowered myself into Linux, taking baby steps if you will, and it's time for me to move on. But I don't know if it is either necessary or difficult to do so. Perhaps I should try Arch, and take the plunge. I feel I could possibly get more from a different OS. However it did take a lot of tweaking to get my macbook running ubuntu just how I wanted it. Because it was apple hardware I feel, not because of ubuntu. I mean ubuntu works almost flawlessly on my desktop. Out of the box.
Anyway. Thanks again

[sakeniwefu]

You have to love minimal installation media that forget to include documentation, a vi clone, a compiler and sometimes even package management.

Wikis require that you have a working web browser and internet connection. Luckily, Arch includes a couple of Howtos and a way to read them, and more importantly it tells you that they are there as soon as you log in. Almost BSD quality(some manual pages are still too vague). Arch Linux is definitely high in my list of Linux distributions.
However I do not think it will replace my Xubuntu, they fit two different niches even if they may overlap at times, and I am not removing OpenBSD anytime soon.

Lastly, I find it humorous that they ask you to edit /etc/fstab manually in the setup and then suggest that you use nano(easier).

[zombie_monkey]

I've never had to do anything with the /etc/fstab that Arch makes during installation, except adding noatime and nodiratime when installing on an SSD.

[edwford]

What differences are there between BSD and Linux, from a user perspective that is. Not from the historical etc. Just wondering.

[sakeniwefu]

What differences are there between BSD and Linux, from a user perspective that is. Not from the historical etc. Just wondering.

* BSD usually has better documentation.

* BSD base system is generally more consistent as it is a continuum. GNU/Linux base system is made by randomly aggregating conflicting code from many different sources.

* Linux has better hardware support. However, sometimes it involves binary blobs which only work for a spcecific kernel revision and which the vendors can drop at will leaving you with a brick.

* Linux has major contributors from the corporate world and is usually ahead in terms of performance and advanced features.

* Some FOSS/proprietary software is Linux-only because it uses hooks to the kernel. Linux emulation is available in BSDs but 100% compatibility is not guaranteed.

* Linux has many plug-and-play desktop distributions while BSD only has two and both are FreeBSD-based.

[hotaru]

* Linux has major contributors from the corporate world and is usually ahead in terms of performance and advanced features.

the first part of that statement is true, but the second part isn't.
freebsd is ahead of linux in terms of performance:

When compared with the best performing Linux kernel (2.6.22 or 2.6.24) performance is 15% better.

and has some advanced features that linux doesn't, such as zfs.

* Linux has many plug-and-play desktop distributions while BSD only has two and both are FreeBSD-based.

there are at least 3:
http://desktopbsd.net/
http://www.pcbsd.org/
http://www.midnightbsd.org/
and there are a number of bsd plug-and-play desktop live cds.

[OOPMan]

I just installed OpenSolaris 2008.11 in VMWare yesterday morning. The new time slider feature is nice. Alas,
OS is just too slow to use within VMWare, it really needs to run direct. Still, it's fun to muck with now and then.

It still has a long way to go, though...

[sakeniwefu]

there are at least 3.(...)
and there are a number of bsd plug-and-play desktop live cds.

I didn't remember about Midnight, sorry.
If you take plug-and-play literally, any BSD is plug and play as long as your hardware is supported. But you will concede that even those 3 are not Ubuntu.

[edwford]

btw, Just to say. I decided to use Open Suse with KDE4 (downloading it as we speak). I've wanted to try suse for a while now.
I would have used Kubuntu, but reports are that it seems quite buggy.
Arch and Slackware seem too deep for me right now.
Fedora just doesn't seem to come as recommended (be it with KDE or not) enough for my liking.

Plus I hear Open Suse is to KDE what Ubuntu is to Gnome. With the desktop priorities being the 1st in mind respectively.

[Berengal]

Kubuntu is buggy because of KDE4. It's improved alot since the first 4.0 release, but it's still not bug free. My Arch installation of it has some program crash about once each day. That said, bugs are their main priority, and I've noticed quite the improvement over the short period I've used it (since 4.1.1)

[edwford]

Yeah I can see how KDE4 is buggy from my short use of it...

[GuitarFreak]

Vista HP on my laptop and desktop with a copy of ultimate 64 bit on my desktop as well.

[Iori_Yagami]

Where is 'OS? What's that? A program? Why would I need it? Is it better than Word?' option?
BTW, I use win2000.

[zerohero]

I use Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux.

[Ptolom]

Mainly Ubuntu, but I also have a windows XP partition for gaming and any compatibility issues in Ubuntu. I also have Risc OS 4 running under Ubuntu in an emulator and an Archimedes running Risc OS 3. I'm hald way through a Linux from scratch build as well.
I like a variety of operating systems for different things.

[ian]

Mainly Vista with some Ubuntu. Once my external HD arrives I'll be testing windows 7 too.

[Area Man]

I've been using Mandriva for a long time as my stable platform to get work done; now using 2008.1 (no love for KDE 4 yet).
Various extended partitions hold other builds and flavors of linux.
I have a partition for xp to occasionally do some gaming, and do windows compatibility tests.
There's also 30 GB being wasted for vista to boot the goddamn desktop, will be deleted soon.

[redsoxfantom]

I'm currently trying out the Windows 7 beta, although I usually use Vista.

[Scarlet]

I shouldn't be surprised considering the type of forum but...

Ubuntu won?!!?? This makes me rather fuzzy inside =)

[jaearr]

So currently winning the popularity contest:
Linux -> Ubuntu
Branded *NIX -> Solaris
Free *NIX -> FreeBSD
Windows -> XP
DOS -> no one said anything! FreeDOS? OpenDOS? MS-DOS 6.11?
No one uses Plan9, which is understandable because I don't think it even supports USB.

Personally, I use Fedora. I used to use openSuSE, but it makes my computer use more power according to Kill-A-Watt. Couldn't figure out why.

I like FreeDOS, hate OS X, have not tried BSD, want to like OpenSolaris, and vomit a little bit every time I see the Start button in Windows (bad memories).

[Marz]

No one uses Plan9, which is understandable because I don't think it even supports USB.

Wrong, for the record. I read a paper by Rob Pike on their device interface, and they noted USB as being particularly interesting to implement. You aren't far from the truth, of course. My computer can run Plan 9, but just as a terminal, and can't install it. Plan 9 is dead... It's actually very sad; operating systems at the moment are becoming extremely monotonous. We need innovation!

[zombie_monkey]

Em, I already explained why this survey is flawed, but about Plan 9, me and several people I know do occasionally use Plan 9.

[Berengal]

Em, I already explained why this survey is flawed, but about Plan 9, me and several people I know do occasionally use Plan 9.

Occasionally only counts if it's also religiously.

That said, I'd love for a symbolic OS. I wouldn't care much if it was slow; I have a pc powerful enough to run a modern operating system with an ungodly amount of visual bling and three programs running in a tight infinite loop without even noticing a drop in WM performance or responsivity. Since the bling and infinite loops aren't even the status quo, I think I can affoard to sacrifice a little performance to gain symbols integrated into the OS. Despite the software corrolary to Moore's law, linux would have to be written in ruby to be as slow on my machine today as windows was on my first box 15 years ago.

The worst thing is I've heard some rumors about symbolic OSes, and that they actually existed in the wild on lisp machines ages ago, and were supposedly brilliant.

I have this undeveloped hypothesis that an OS is built to suit a particular language's needs. Windows (mostly, I assume) and unix are written in and for C, and it shows. Some higher-level parts of unix have been ported to bash/perl/python (from manual human interaction, mostly (I'm thinking about things like package managers etc. Basically the things that make it all work in the end)). If someone made an OS entirely from python, that'd be pretty interesting. Perhaps it'd be even more interesting if someone made Erlang work on an x86 without a supporting OS. That I'd love to see.

[Minstrel]

Writing this from openSUSE but can't really figure out the point of the distro. It's not bleeding edge like Fedora, installation is pretty but not as easy as Ubuntu (still have issues with sound as well as wireless drivers). I heard good things about YAST, but it seems poorly organized to me; I always end up hunting around forever to find whatever I'm trying to configure or do.

Anyway my desktop runs Debian, which is what I voted for. Install is fairly easy, but you might have to do some work at the command line getting certain drivers running. I like the package selection, stability and the fact that everything is very vanilla; Debian's a nice blank slate on top of which you build the system you want.

[shieldforyoureyes]

The worst thing is I've heard some rumors about symbolic OSes, and that they actually existed in the wild on lisp machines ages ago, and were supposedly brilliant.

The user interface on Lisp Machines is fascinating. It's a really divergent development from CLIs, drasticly different from any modern GUIs. The mouse is used primarily on words in the CLI, rather than graphical elements. (And of course, the entire OS & UI is modifyable in lisp, la la la. Insane.)

(I took all the photos on the wikipedia symbolics page, and a friend of mine took all the screenshots.)

I've heard vague claims over the years that if someone ported a Lisp machine environment onto a modern CPU, it could make excellent use of the memory management hardware and perform significantly better than just running a lisp environment on a *nix. But I haven't heard of anyone actually trying it.

[Mysidic]

Ubuntu right now, but I'd like to get something running OSX, but alas, I am too poor. I have a windows box here too, but it doesn't really do much.

[OOPMan]

Branded *NIX -> Solaris

I was one of the 4 Solaris voters

BUT...

Doesn't Mac OS X with 63 votes count as the winning branded *nix?

[Brosef]

Windows Vista in school (because I can't be bothered to explain that Windows and Mac aren't the only OS out there)
Ubuntu at home and on the PSTRIPLE

I get a good laugh when classmates tell me that I have a very cool windows xp theme

[jagdragon]

I use Ubuntu mainly, but I dual-boot my machine with Windoze XP so that I can game (HL2, TF2, L4D, etc). I much prefer using Ubuntu because of things like the command line, easy installation (sudo apt-get install myapp), ease of programming (gcc -o myprog myprog.c), (python myscript), and all that. It also runs a heck of a lot faster than Windoze, and gets actual updates, rather than Windoze update, which is like a speed throttle on the computer.

[Link]

Gentoo Linux. It's by far the best (by the subjective definition of "best") OS I've ever used. As with all Linux distributions, I can do pretty much anything I personally want with it, without paying for software, and without using pirated software. The advantage of Gentoo in particular is its rolling/versionless updating system. Whereas with most distributions, upgrading the core system requires at least a reboot and at worst a reinstall, in all normal, you don't need to do any of that in Gentoo. Upgrading the kernel requires either a true reboot or a virtual one via kexec, but apart from such low-level changes, you can typically just continue using the system.

That's not to say there are no flaws to Gentoo Linux whatsoever. But I find that the number of flaws and downsides is significantly lower than with all other operating systems I've used or heard of.