OSDev.org

hckr83 wrote:OpenBSD is a good alternative to Linux if your not afraid of a command line.. lol

I'd suggest NetBSD if you're going for a BSD variant myself. If you stick with Linux(which I would suggest more), then I would suggest Slackware or a derivative of it. Slackware really does have the best of everything(minus a dependency checking pkg manager). It's stable, secure, user friendly, and robust. The only downfall of it is the package management, all there is are .tgz files which are gnu zipped tarballs with the binaries the way they look from '/' along with a script that it executes on install. This is good and bad, it doesn't do dependency checks, which for me makes the install easier sometimes, but the uninstalls can be a *****. My favorite distribution that's based off Slackware is ZenWalk, which I might suggest instead, it uses its own package management tool called NetPkg, which does do some dependency checking for you, but their amount of packages is a little limited, luckily you can use any slackware package and install it like you would on any slack system, but it wont go into the NetPkg database for dep-checking and stuff, so you'll have to keep track of that stuff on your own like the standard slack system too.

So now that you've convinced us to not use it, what are the good features of Slackware?

hehe , I havent used slackware or bsd , I have used much linux distros but not those ones but I will make a point of trying them at some point now! In fact I remember way back one of my friends who isnt into linux to much handed me a disk from a pc mag and I set it all up and by default it was pure commandline all the way, no gui, I wander if that was bsd? That was a good few years ago now though

So you've now convinced me that Frugal fixes Slackware... so Frugal is better.

The Slackware Distribution itself. Is there any reason at all for me to use it?

I went with gentoo initially because of the portage style package management, thats what I hated about linux, that in some cases an obscure and sometimes not even essential lib would break a whole set of packages or you would get a circle of dependancies. If I think back say 2 years ago and BEFORE I found linux to be extremely bad for this, heck I even remember following a massive guide once and at the end of the guide it said to run some apt-get basic command and then wham it wrecked the whole system beyond repair. That is the kind of stuff I imagine puts people off linux , irrespective if there is good reasons for the design or whatever.

Thats also why I stayed clear of ubuntu for long enough because it used apt-get but upon using ubuntu recently it came a long long way and Im glad to see linux package management stupidity is becomming a thing of the past . If I had the time to do the install I would definatly use gentoo because I can pick and choose what I need and your pretty much gaurenteed that the vast majority of packages will work with the standard emerge command and the absolute minority that dont will be easily fixable and bugs documented well in the gentoo specific forums.

Actually talking about bugs I think that bugzilla could be done better, I hate when I go there and I just end up in a loop of links where some admin removes stuff and puts this bug x1 is a duplicated of y1, then y1 is a duplicate of some other bug etc etc and I honesty very very seldom find anything of use there because of the system thats immplemented to resolve bugs. (I guess thats why Im sold on gentoo, I mean even though my perceptions of it all may seem wrong to some I think they seem to set their own standards and are a hell of alot more strict about what gets on their stable branch - as I always say to friends, do a boring install with gentoo but the pay off is you know practically everything thats on your system, where the config files are, how to update, if something breaks the fixes really to work for the best and are explained by people who know how to elucidate their point by proper use of the English language and to me this is just as important as technical know how)

I like the sound of that frugal and arch linux though! Havent tried those ones , how long have those distros been on the go for?

at least apt-get is better than yum

Well, Gentoo 2008.0 is out and I have made an effort to install it. Using the live CD I actually did good, very good I'd say, but then the kernel had to be configured... Well, I'm lost and the person to tried to convince me that this was actually easy (resulting in me feeling rather down.) need to consult a psychiatrist or something, cause this is anything but easy.
Anyway, I'll succeed sooner or later, just need to do some more reading. I guess when I finaly succeed I'll have enough experience to do my own LFS.

berkus wrote:I'm not the noob in the linuxland, but I chose ArchLinux and live happily ever since.

Pros:
* Fast installation.
* Easy to keep up-to-date.
* Sane package management.
* Easy to build packages for new software if you ever need to.
* Very good supportive community.
Cons:
* Will need a little bit of setup in the beginning (no completely automatic configuration like in debian on mandriva).

But nowadays Linux systems are so easy to configure, I'm not even counting this con as a con.

I like ArchLinux too since it's a more low-level build-it-all-yourself distro. My second choice would be Gentoo since it has a larger support base, larger number of packages part of the distribution, but when I used it I happened to make the mistake of compiling everything from source which took a while.

Why Slackware ?
1) Old is gold :- Slackware is the oldest and the best . It can be converted into plantinum via high enery nuclear reactions
2) Easy to master :- Slackware is a relatively simple distro , which makes it easier to understand .Hence it is user friendly .
3) @Zacariaz : The Slackware linux site has the source code of all the apps that compiles happily with current slackware version . Therfore slackware serve as an excellent host platform for building your own linux distro .
4) Fast : Slackware linux is a no nonsense linux distribution , it starts up pretty quickly .
5) Most slackware linux based distos ship with almost all the developement tools i generally require .
In a nutshell , Slackware linux is the best in the world . Bwi ha ha ha ha ha
{ The choice of Linux distribution is really a matter of choice and there is really nothing much in it . Nevertheless I am a fervent Slackware supporter .}
Regards
Evil Sandeep

I've interrest into Frugalware but their installer is quite buggy, so i abandon with that.
Also, i'm a conviced Debian testing user. I've not the latests software, but don't worry with it, i don't need them.
I prefer a stable system than an updated system. I'm tring to set a gentoo on my desktop, but have to solve a problem with circular dependencies.

I hear windows XP is pretty good.

lollynoob wrote:I hear windows XP is pretty good.

why not vista instead?

In rare circumstances, Vista can be an improvement.

For instance, the Vista x64 nForce driver is much more stable for me than the XP x64 driver. I'm not sure if that chip is the specific cause, but I was getting lots of bugchecks that were i/o related prior to upgrading.

I still use Linux most of the time, but Windows doesn't BSOD on me anymore when I do a moderately-sized i/o operation!

I think Vista is an improvement but only for modern pcs, because it need a more powerfull pc than XP.
But if the pc is ok (2gb of ram), i've tested and think Vista is a little more reactive, but longer to boot. The prefetcher is the reason, i think.

Deleted