OT: "Best" Linux Distro?

[Scott Stevens]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:46:04 -0800
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:

> I've had Linux in one form or the other since the very early release days
> (0.something).  I've never found it for use as a desktop system (especially
> GUI) particularly compelling.  I think many folks secretly hold the same
> opinion, else why the rise of products like Wine?  And there are some areas
> where it really is deficient--multimedia for example.  Specialized apps are
> another area--I've never found a really good WYSIWYG musical notation
> editor for Linux.
> 
> For doing real work, I like command line interfaces, so I keep a Linux
> system around that I can telnet into from my Windows desktop.  I might be
> tempted to use a Mac as a desktop machine, but my customers in general
> don't, so it's best to live where they do, so to speak.
> 
> My mail and net server is Linux and I change distros there when I change
> hardware--every few years.  There's no reason to do otherwise--the new
> distros aren't as a rule faster and the server basically never crashes
> since it's always doing the same thing day after day.
> 
> As far as distros go, I started with Slackware, but have been using RH for
> some time, simply because I've been using RH for some time..  It really
> doesn't matter all that much--RH does tend to be very spotty in its
> releases--you can often find some very old release of a package in their
> distros--and they have the RH way of doing things.  Debian isn't bad but
> can get to be very confusing and verbose during installation--and help in
> making choices is often difficult to find.  I've also tried SuSE and it's
> pretty good.
> 
> But mostly, I want to install the blasted thing and be done with it.
> 
> Others have observed the bloat in Linux and I agree.  I started running it
> on an 8MB 386 and it was pretty snappy.  I don't think that feat could be
> reproduced with any of the current distros.
> 
Most of the current distros won't even install on a '386 processor, because the producers have compiled the binaries with the performance-boosting features of newer chips.  Some binaries won't run on less than a Pentium.  And some people even squawk about that as being good.  (on-topic grumble and glance over at full-AT 80386-16 box currently not in use).