Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

to linux or not to linux...

to linux ... definitely ;->

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 10:47:29AM -0500, Stephen Adler wrote:
> But, looking on the bright side, this would be an ideal opportunity
> to do something radical.. like switch distro's for example. So,
> I'm wondering if anyone would care to chime in.
> 1) Should I load fedora core 3 (which is what I was planning on
> doing...)
> 2) Switch to enterprise linux 4
> 3) Switch to SuSE
> 4) Mandrake?
> 5) Debian?
> Here is the goal and a bit of motivation on why I'm actually
> considering switching from the Fedora Core sect.
> I use my notebook for my job and it does need to work and be stable.
> When I loaded fedora core 3, evolution started causing stability
> problems which made me switch to thunderbird.

If your main concern is stability and you want most things to "just
work", then the latest Fedora Core should probably not be your first

The introductory statement says:

"It is also a _proving ground_ for new technology that may eventually
make its way into Red Hat products."

This is the first clue that Fedora Core is bleeding edge, and that
stability problems are to be expected.  You evolution problems are
evidence of this, and there is plenty of other evidence as well.

> In short, I use my computers for my profession and I don't have time
> to deal with these kinds of problems.

It sounds to me like you want to spend as little time as possible
installing, configuring and maintaining your system.  In this case you
should consider SuSE, Mandrake, or (dare I say) Ubuntu.

If you're willing to get your hands dirty, with the payoff of having
more control over many aspects of your system (and having more of a clue
when things go wrong), you should consider Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, or
(dare I say) Arch Linux.

> So, I would like stability, but at the same time, I would like to as
> current as possible with desktop software, (i.e. either gnome or KDE,
> internet connectivity tools, etc.) This sounds a bit like an ad for
> Red Hat enterprise,

Except for the "as current as possible" part, this is also an ad for
just about every distribution out there.

Rather than thinking in terms of being "as current as possible", maybe
you should think about whether or not you actually need features offered
in the most recent versions.  In most cases I'm betting you will not.
First narrow down your list of requirements.  Think about what software
you actually need and prefer, and then determine if you have version
requirements (some of which may be determined by hardware).  This may
help narrow down which distribution would be the most suitable.

Since you are going to install on a brand new laptop, you should
be googling for hardware compatibility, which may also influence your

> BTW, yes, I'm willing to pay for a linux distribution. Something
> I think the linux community should learn to get comfortable with...
> ;)

If you can give me one compelling reason to purchase RHEL for a
workstation or laptop when there are so many excellent
community-supported distributions out there, then I would be willing to
pay also.  Otherwise you are just lining the pockets of Red Hat when the
money could have been donated to the FSF, or elsewhere.  If you're
thinking that purchasing RHEL is supporting the community, it is to the
extent that Red Hat is, but IMHO, there are better ways to do so
(contributing code, reporting bugs, advocating Linux, starting an open
source project, etc.).


BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /