Overclock.net banner

Best Linux distro for home workstation

13K views 66 replies 22 participants last post by  Plan9 
#1 ·
alright so my experience with linux is pretty basic. Ive used ubuntu, mint, and xbuntu

Im looking for something that will give me a bit of a learning experience with linux as i go i would like to use it as a main OS on my workstation with windows more as a backup and for random gaming

I know most of the distros would fit my need for a general workstationg but im looking for something that has a bit of a learning curve and forces me to learn things as i go.

thanks in advance for your help
thumb.gif
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
ArchLinux if you want to delve a bit further into Linux.

It's a bare bone distro and has an absolutely excellent information base in its Wiki.

I would consider it to be sorta in the middle, you aren't given everything like in Ubuntu or the like, but you don't have to build the whole kernel yourself like some other even harder distro's.

It'll force you to learn, and the Wiki will help you learn as well.
 
#6 ·
thanks for the help guys gentoo looks pretty daunting but im considering it im reading up on arch now too still not sure which i should go with
 
#7 ·
also how is the stability with the arch and gentoo distros would i loose any stability once everything is set up and ready to go?
 
#9 ·
Greetz
I've been using Linux for well over 12 years and have tried some 50 distros, most for several weeks at a time excepting LiveCD-based which I usually get for a specific reason/application. Admittedly it has been around 8 years since I used Gentoo and I find I am still asking the same question - "What do I get in return for all the extra work?" Eight years ago they were still saying "Speed!" even after many tests showed there was no significant speed advantage to compiling everything from source, even when Gentoo experts did the compiling. The only upside I can see is that you do learn some things you are not likely to learn otherwise. Whether or not that is useful knowledge is moot.

Last year I tried Arch for 11 weeks and found it to be a serious and respectable distro. However, for me it has an odd combination of Gentoo problems and the exact opposite problems. The Gentoo-like problems have largely to do with install. Since you get barebones when you download you have to discover, and by the exact name, what you would like to add on. In my case I didn't know about the alternate install method and when I installed X, it did not include basic mouse and keyboard support in X. That seemed to me like buying a new car only to find the starter and gear shift are optional extras. It's not that it was such a huge deal for me since I actually use runlevels and boot to CLI not X, and it was relatively easy to fix. It was that it betrayed a philosophy I don't agree with nor like - Make it small no matter what the cost.

The rather schizophrenic flip-side is that a distro that expects you to manually add support for required applications/modules, is also setup to resolve dependencies for you once it is setup. I have been burned far too many times by installing and especially uninstalling things with package managers that also resolve dependencies to ever "fall in love" or even trust such a distro. Then I had trouble installing things not from the repositories whether from direct source or binary installers such as those for browsers, drivers, and some games that come in a ".bin" or even ".sh" format. I'm not saying this affliction affects everyone, just that it was my experience and after 11 weeks of trying it was just more trouble than it was worth.

Some of this dissatisfaction is probably due to my long time use of Slackware, because by now, it is what I'm used to and that seems to affect peoples' opinions and recommendations a great deal. We tend to like what we've grown comfortable with. However the same reason that hinted at a larger design philosophy seducing me to install it in the first place and is still why it is my main today, over 10 years later, is that "stuff just compiles right, in it". It may seem small, but it hints at a larger issue - Slackware is truly Vanilla and the small design team does not assume to know what you want more than you do. System stability and compatibility is considered a higher priority than any one package and that seems right thinking to me.

In any case it is not as hard to learn as many people seem to suppose (certainly much more friendly than Gentoo) and whatever difficulty one encounters seems to result in "Oh so that's why they did that!". If you want a challenge that actually pays you back, and for many years to come, for your work to arise to the challenge, I heartily recommend Slackware.
 
#11 ·
ive been trying out fedora recently. I like your-self had been on ubuntu/mint/debian based things for awhile. Tho in all honesty its not that much different. Tho messing around with gnome 3 is kinda fun, not sure if I like it yet or not, def has a learning curve.
 
#13 ·
There's suggestions flying around everywhere here!

Gentoo, Slackware, and Arch all have complicated installs, and can be a bit of a baptism of fire. Without a bit of commitment to do research, you might be put off. Linux From Scratch is only for the criminally insane lol

I'd recommend Debian minimal. It's kinda like Arch, but a bit more hand-holding. That said, if you can cope with the Arch wiki, go for Arch, it's worth it
smile.gif


As an aside, have you compiled your own custom kernel? If not, I'd say stick with Ubuntu and just do that. It's a nice learning experience
smile.gif
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemicalfan View Post

There's suggestions flying around everywhere here!
Gentoo, Slackware, and Arch all have complicated installs, and can be a bit of a baptism of fire. Without a bit of commitment to do research, you might be put off. Linux From Scratch is only for the criminally insane lol
I'd recommend Debian minimal. It's kinda like Arch, but a bit more hand-holding. That said, if you can cope with the Arch wiki, go for Arch, it's worth it
smile.gif

As an aside, have you compiled your own custom kernel? If not, I'd say stick with Ubuntu and just do that. It's a nice learning experience
smile.gif
ya there is alot to take in lol

I have not compiled my own kernel before Linux is something I would like to learn along with the networking/security stuff im doing now however i have trouble just playing around with the linux installs to learn stuff which is why i figured i would go with a harder install and force me to learn as i go like you said baptism by fire lol
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by racer86 View Post

ya there is alot to take in lol
I have not compiled my own kernel before Linux is something I would like to learn along with the networking/security stuff im doing now however i have trouble just playing around with the linux installs to learn stuff which is why i figured i would go with a harder install and force me to learn as i go like you said baptism by fire lol
I too recommend Debian-testing. The man reason is simplicity. When doing work, I don't want to have to do step a,b and c just to be able to get to a point where I can start to do the work I set out to do in the first place. Debian makes things very simple, and gives you a decent understanding of what's going on - just not as low-level as Arch, and especially Gentoo, would get.

I use Debian in my day-to-day and as a home server. In my free time I experiment with the more hands-on distro's - Arch right now (though I haven't touched it in well over 2 months to be honest). If you're looking for a bit more speed, re-compile your own kernel. It won't be a massive jump in performance but it can eek out a tad to make things seem more fluid. As others have said, building entirely from source doesn't equal a massive boost in speed anyways - but cutting out the junk you don't need can.

So, in short - production/work environment: Debian. Test/learning/fun environment: Arch, then Slack or Gentoo.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboTurtle View Post

I too recommend Debian-testing. The man reason is simplicity. When doing work, I don't want to have to do step a,b and c just to be able to get to a point where I can start to do the work I set out to do in the first place. Debian makes things very simple, and gives you a decent understanding of what's going on - just not as low-level as Arch, and especially Gentoo, would get.
I use Debian in my day-to-day and as a home server. In my free time I experiment with the more hands-on distro's - Arch right now (though I haven't touched it in well over 2 months to be honest). If you're looking for a bit more speed, re-compile your own kernel. It won't be a massive jump in performance but it can eek out a tad to make things seem more fluid. As others have said, building entirely from source doesn't equal a massive boost in speed anyways - but cutting out the junk you don't need can.
So, in short - production/work environment: Debian. Test/learning/fun environment: Arch, then Slack or Gentoo.
Once you get everything set up, there's no real difference in how you go about doing things. The reason I don't suggest Debian, is because the file systems are almost completely different than every other Linux distro out there. Which means, you can get to know Debian at the core, but when you go to move to another distro as mainstream, you have to re-learn were most files are. Or you'll be stuck referring to Wiki's for the rest of time.

As for the Production/work environment crap, Debian is far from it, it is still bloated and the only difference between it and Ubuntu or Mint, is that you have to install your DE, after that you've got yourself a glorified Ubuntu. Arch/Gentoo/Slack/LFS are all equally capable of being mainstream work environment distros. It's all in how you set it up and the knowledge you obtain. I've been using my Arch install for 3+ years now, and before that I was using Mandrake for about 8-9 years. Any linux can be used mainstream, they're virtually all the same in the end. It's just how much freedom do you want and how optimized you want to get.
 
#17 ·
Ah, but Shrak - OP wanted a learning experience, not cutting-edge performance. Debian is bloaty, but much better than Ubuntu in my experience.

Sorry OP, forgot to mention that Debian is a lot more stable than Arch. Because Arch uses bleeding-edge packages, sometimes there are bugs, and sometimes these break things.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemicalfan View Post

Ah, but Shrak - OP wanted a learning experience, not cutting-edge performance. Debian is bloaty, but much better than Ubuntu in my experience.
Sorry OP, forgot to mention that Debian is a lot more stable than Arch. Because Arch uses bleeding-edge packages, sometimes there are bugs, and sometimes these break things.
Arch is far from unstable, despite being bleeding edge. As much as I've done with it over the years, I've never had a crash or any problem with packages.

And as I said, Debian is just essentially Ubuntu with no DE installed by default, there's no learning to be done there. It's better to get into how the rest of the world does linux and not the small corner that is debian and debian based distros
tongue.gif
 
#20 ·
OP, if you're on here long enough and try 100s of distros asking and learning questions, researching, as I did.... you'll come to trust Chemicalfan for all things Debian, and Enorbit2 for Slackware. Those guys know their sh
post-flame-small.gif
t for sure, and are happy to help when you get stuck on something, and wont make you feel like an idiot in the process. Kudos to them.

But what I have learned from them is that you can learn a LOT from any Linux distro. I've learned that these guys talk up certain distros, but the distro matters almost not at all. What ever distro you are using now, can do anything Arch, Gentoo, or Slackware can do. The desktop environment is the biggest change between distros. Want a learning experience? Take any loaded-with-software distro, strip it, then put it all back. Then change the desktop environment and do it again. Eventually you'll learn what DEs work with what, and you'll see what makes graphical errors, and crashes. You'll get frustrated, try and try again to fix it, and when you can't fix it through research or trial/error then ask here. In the end, you'll learn how to do most anything, and you'll form your own opinions about what works best for you. I used to even think RPM and DEB were such huge differences... their not. The distro is what you make it to be. They are all as good as you have time to learn about them. I don't see distros as different anymore. I see them in categories of ease of use for new to experienced, which really just comes down to what is preinstalled, and the DE. Just pick any, literally, ANY distro, then change the DE. You'll soon see what I see. Once your eyes are open to such, you'll look at Windows and Mac differently, and wonder how anyone can stand the lemming approach.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrak View Post

As for the Production/work environment crap, Debian is far from it, it is still bloated and the only difference between it and Ubuntu or Mint, is that you have to install your DE, after that you've got yourself a glorified Ubuntu. Arch/Gentoo/Slack/LFS are all equally capable of being mainstream work environment distros. It's all in how you set it up and the knowledge you obtain. I've been using my Arch install for 3+ years now, and before that I was using Mandrake for about 8-9 years. Any linux can be used mainstream, they're virtually all the same in the end. It's just how much freedom do you want and how optimized you want to get.
Yeah, Debian is the most widely used enterprise linux server OS because it's far from production quality, and is bloated.
rolleyes.gif


FYI, it's impossible for something to become a "glorified" version of something else that is based upon it to begin with.

OP, what you have here is what we call an Arch-tard. Someone who relegates anything that isn't entirely source based to "crap" and insists that bleeding edge can easily be stable as a rock. The reason something becomes known for it's stability (like Debian, for example) is because it's tested, patch, re-tested rinse and repeat until it's rock solid. Bleeding edge by definition, is not tested to be rock solid.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by racer86 View Post

also how is the stability with the arch and gentoo distros would i loose any stability once everything is set up and ready to go?
A properly setup Gentoo would be about as solid as it gets. Arch is great and is stable but make sure to read about the updates prior to doing them a lot of things can and will break and you might be stuck just sitting there thinking "WTH am I going to do?!" I would recommend if you do proceed with Arch is to never do a pacman -Sc until you are very comfortable with everything (this clears out pacman cache), it will allow you to downgrade your system if something fails.

The closest thing to a non stable Debian besides actually using testing or unstable would be Linux Mint Debian (LDME) it will break and you can fix it easily.
 
#23 ·
Archlinux design is flawed. Unless you keep the entire system continuously up to date every time you need to install something new (which is tedious), expect things to break.

For example suppose you sync to a repo on the 1st of Jan. Then a month later you want to install something simple like a burning app. You proceed to install it only to discover that a few dependencies have been updated in the repo and pacman cannot find the version you need. So now your pacman index is out of date. So you go and do a full sync but the problem with this is if you do a full sync you better do a complete OS update else stuff will break spectacularly if you decide to just install a couple of stuff and have the entire system out of synch.

For me it seems rather impractical to be expected to update your entire system to install a small application. So ya use Arch if you enjoy doing full updates regularly.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

Archlinux design is flawed. Unless you keep the entire system continuously up to date every time you need to install something new (which is tedious), expect things to break.
[snip]
That's the case with every package based distro. What you're talking about is a limitation with shared objects (.so) - which all distros use - rather than a pacman / Arch limitation.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by StupidMonkey View Post

OP, if you're on here long enough and try 100s of distros asking and learning questions, researching, as I did.... you'll come to trust Chemicalfan for all things Debian, and Enorbit2 for Slackware. Those guys know their sh
post-flame-small.gif
t for sure, and are happy to help when you get stuck on something, and wont make you feel like an idiot in the process. Kudos to them.
Wow, thanks for the huge compliment, but it might be a little misguided? I wouldn't class myself as a Debian or Ubuntu expert by any stretch - I learnt almost everything I know from the source-based Arch project I ran. I'd advise anyone serious about Linux to try the same, nothing like learning what makes a Linux system tick than manually installing everything (under the guidance of a package manager, from a pre-built shell). Sure, you could use Slack to acheive the same means, but Firefox 3 doesn't cut it for me
tongue.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboTurtle View Post

OP, what you have here is what we call an Arch-tard. Someone who relegates anything that isn't entirely source based to "crap" and insists that bleeding edge can easily be stable as a rock. The reason something becomes known for it's stability (like Debian, for example) is because it's tested, patch, re-tested rinse and repeat until it's rock solid. Bleeding edge by definition, is not tested to be rock solid.
Kinda resent that, but I see your angle. Anyone that insists Arch is just as stable Debian or Slack, is a fool. It might be stable one day, but you do a "pacman -Syu" and you could be rendered with an unbootable mess. Playing Russian roulette with updates gets boring after a while, that's why I jumped back to Ubuntu (although I hate the bloat - my lsmod is nauseating compared to Arch)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

Archlinux design is flawed. Unless you keep the entire system continuously up to date every time you need to install something new (which is tedious), expect things to break.
For example suppose you sync to a repo on the 1st of Jan. Then a month later you want to install something simple like a burning app. You proceed to install it only to discover that a few dependencies have been updated in the repo and pacman cannot find the version you need. So now your pacman index is out of date. So you go and do a full sync but the problem with this is if you do a full sync you better do a complete OS update else stuff will break spectacularly if you decide to just install a couple of stuff and have the entire system out of synch.
For me it seems rather impractical to be expected to update your entire system to install a small application. So ya use Arch if you enjoy doing full updates regularly.
And that's hit the nail on the head. Stabilitity means that the system won't be toast after an update. It's a trade-off with having bleeding-edge, untested software. You pay your money, you take your choice.
 
#26 ·
If you want to know how the linux system works then I would suggest LFS, Arch is good but being a rolling distro it has it's break points. Debian being the most stable is because they do not put up the package till it is tested/tried and given a stability / security mark.

first understand that the kernel is everything.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top