Printable View
I think I'm ready for the next step. Any suggestions? I don't want to be a l33t haxxor or however I'm supposed to spell it but I would like a little bit more control and would like to move in the direction of understanding how everything is put together. I tried LFS but that was just over the top for me right now. GCC takes my machine about 5 hours to build and I don't have the patience for it. somehow I keep fucking it up. Thanks for any input.
What do you mean by "more control"?
No distro will take any control away
There's nothing you can do in distros mentioned below that you can't in Ubuntu
Having said that,
Distro hopping is good for you
There's no "one size fits all" solution, and you may be more comfortable with something else
There's a few questions to ask
1) Do you want a version release distro, or a rolling release?
2) Desktop Environment - any preferences?
3) Package management - any preferences?
Some notable distros
Debian
Arch
OpenSuse
Slackware
Fedora
Mandriva
Yey Slackware, and it's prefferably 1337 H4xX0R. That's just the way we like it.
Anyway, I'm doing the exact same thing as you and installing a less "The-OS-will-take-care-of-it" OS.
Slackware.
I'm getting kind of sick of Ubuntu, is #! any good? I hear good things about it.
Is #! any good? Uhm, yes. It tells the shell where the script's interpreter is.
Not relevant.
*sigh* Crunchbang Linux http://crunchbanglinux.org/
Looks not bad, never actually heard of it. Shame, considering my GDM is based off of that background, can't believe I never knew.
Based on ubuntu, just with the openbox GUI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
BTW I have LAMP servers running Ubuntu without a gui, its not a noob OS despite its wide appeal to the non-computer savvy.
To Philosopher:
I've used every distro Ynot listed and if you really need to try something I like Fedora, but from what your saying you'd be better off sticking with ubuntu. I don't know what your asking, I've compiled custom kernels for ubuntu and had the system with full drive encryption back around 6.06. Its linux, you can do anything with it. Your seriously not limited in anyway. Try some other OSes if you'd like though all the ones Ynot listed are good although I personally dislike openSuse quite a bit.
Ubuntu makes a *very* nice server OS
I do a bit of free-lance Linux consultancy, and I recommend Ubuntu servers for a number of reasons
It's security supported by a both a commercial company, and the community at large
Now this isn't too revolutionary, most commercially supported distros will give you these two avenues for security support
The great thing is, beyond-security support from Canonical is optional
This opens up a huge level of flexibility for end users, for little to no risk
If they have the skills in-house to admin the server, then they don't need anything
If they don't have the skills in-house, they will need support (possibly only initial setup - but most times some sort contract)
They have 2 options for 3rd party support
Either Canonical, or some local support firm
They can even flip-flop between different companies for support / maintenance without touching the system
Find a firm that's offering cheaper support, switch.
By contrast going with, say, RedHat and you're stuck with having a support contract from RedHat
Want to move your support? You'll have to move your server over to CentOS, then you can go to other firms, but then RedHat's out of the equation for future support, unless you move distro again
Ubuntu makes it super easy to move your support around
I've had quite a few small firms perk their ears up, when I've explained they can go with a cheaper, local firm for support; and in the event of this support firm going belly up, or just not pulling their weight, one call to Canonical and support is transfered over
I tell you what, for small businesses support costs can be a bit daunting, and the ability to freely move around is a big plus for them
The main differences between most distros are package management and init system. Almost all distros have some sort of package management, but not all distros keep track of dependencies for you (i.e. Slackware and some of its derivatives). Some distros operate on a rolling release with daily updates as software is updated upstream (e.g. Arch and Gentoo). This gives you bleeding edge software, but less time for testing means less guarantee of stability. Other distros issue fixed releases every now and then (e.g. Ubuntu and Slackware). Yet others offer you a choice of release type (i.e. Debian). Fixed releases provide more time for testing, and some distros are more stable as a result. Slackware and Debian stable in particular are known for their stability.
I don't know too much about the different init systems out there, but most distros base theirs off of the scripts from SysV UNIX or BSD. I like BSD-style config scripts (e.g. Slackware, CRUX, and Arch) since they're conducive to editing by yourself in a text editor. SysV-style scripts (e.g. Debian and Gentoo) are said to be better for automated configuration, which I get the feeling means automated configuration by GUI abstraction layers. Some distros use entirely different init systems (e.g. Ubuntu, which uses something called Upstart).
Most distros are pretty much the same except for their package managers and init systems. Some might come with specific X setups already installed and configured, but these are only the defaults. Ubuntu comes with GNOME, KDE, or Xfce preinstalled, but there's nothing to stop you from installing a fully keyboard-controlled tiling window manager like Ratpoison, Stumpwm, or dwm. Likewise, even though Arch boots to a framebuffer console by default, nothing's stopping you from installing X11 and even using KDE4 as your desktop environment.
I don't have much experience with hand-holding distros that aim to make the transition from Windows or Mac OS X easy (e.g. Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora, and Mandriva) since I made the switch from Mac OS X to Arch over a year ago, but here's a little comparison of some good distros that facilitate custom tailoring your Linux environment to meet your needs.
Debian: Comes in stable (fixed releases after extensive but possibly excessive testing and patching), testing (rolling release after several months of testing), and unstable (rolling release) versions. Most users will find stable too outdated except for server use and unstable too buggy for normal use (although Ubuntu is based off of Debian's unstable tree). It features a binary package manager (APT) with automated dependency resolution. Unfortunately IMO, Debian devs have a tendency to patch software programs a bit excessively, considering that the devs of those programs understand the code better than the Debian devs do. This might result in you not understanding your system that well.
Gentoo: A source based distro that aims to give you total control over your system. Its Portage package management system features automated dependency resolution that provides a lot of control (through a feature called USE flags) over which features of programs get compiled and which dependencies get built. This ability to install only what you need to keeps your system very slim. It's worth mentioning that some users claim a noticeable speed increase with Gentoo over binary distributions since you can use compiler-specific optimization flags for every piece of software compiled. It's arguable whether CFLAGS that optimize beyond, say, i686 create executables that run any faster. Installing software and, more importantly, keeping the system up to date can take a lot of time, however, due to the nature of source code compilation. Note though that Gentoo provides pre-compiled binaries for common programs to save time.
Arch: The distro that I currently use. Its binary based package manager called pacman uses packages optimized for the i686 and 64 bit x86 architectures, so it feels as fast as source based distros, but without the compiler overhead. Updates take seconds rather than hours. It also has a great source based package management tool called ABS (the Arch Build System) that works with pacman to let you customize programs how you wish. Arch also has a repository called the AUR where users can add their own build scripts for the community to use. Arch has an awesome BSD-style init system with a central /etc/rc.conf file, which was inspired by CRUX. There's a strong KISS focus (emphasis on minimalism) where the user is given as direct control of his Linux environment as possible. Arch is also one of the most up-to-date distros around, with updates sometimes available the day they come out. That means Arch doesn't test packages as extensively as some other distros, instead relying on upstream developers for bug fixes and such, which unfortunately sometimes results in instability as with Gentoo.
Slackware: Very stable, BSD-style init scripts, works on older hardware than Arch does, and it has a heavy emphasis on minimalism to the extent that its package management doesn't include automated dependency resolution. It is up to the user to install each and every package. It's officially a binary distro, but it doesn't have binary packages for a whole lot of modern software, so it's effectively a source based distro without dependency resolution. Nevertheless, slackbuild scripts automate the build process at least to some extent, and Slackware's strict attempt to use vanilla source code whenever possible results in one of the most stable Linux distributions on the planet. Slackware is great for servers and MythTV boxes, but if you don't feel the need to update software once you install it and get it working, Slackware might very well work for you as a desktop OS. If you don't want to wait between (long) fixed releases, you can use the -current branch, but I don't expect it to be as stable as the releases.
CRUX: The inspiration for Arch Linux. It's just about the most minimalist distro on the planet with a true KISS focus. It's source based like Gentoo, but it does not have the benefit of USE flags. It also doesn't run on (or at least have an official version for) a whole lot of architectures, including x86-64. Nevertheless, it's probably the purest Linux experience one can have shy of (or even including) LFS, and it has a great BSD-style init system with a central /etc/rc.conf file like Arch.
We have received some great replies here. I do computer consulting among other things for my business too Ynot and I agree with it being a good platform for business servers on a variety of accounts. Don't knock ubuntu, its a fantastic platform. There is no reason not to make linux assessable and it doesn't limit you. Besides in a business environment win32 is still your dominant desktop platform, I personally was hoping ubuntu desktop would move in on that depending on the business and their needs and it has made some progress but nothing mind blowing. Your observations about support are also spot on Ynot.
dsr did a great analysis on distros, very well spoken. I have little to no experience with Arch linux but have only heard good things. As dsr noted and I've seen some confusion with for people new to linux your distro will pretty much support any interface and window manager your hardware and software support. Just because Gnome and KDE are standard on ubuntu doesn't mean you can't try openbox, enlightenment, and flux. For most linux systems I have they are all remotely managed with ssh. You can learn a lot by navigating and managing your system locally in console, although I'm not quite sure what your looking for in an OS Op.
I've used gentoo before for servers and if your moving from a easy to use gui based system that keeps your dirty work under the hood (ubuntu for instance), and don't want to learn the ins and outs of your software I don't recommend it. However if you are relatively experienced you may want to try it, as dsr mentioned it is bleeding edge and VERY admin involved. I however did not enjoy that level of maintenance over time for my servers and switched my stuff over to ubuntu with a custom more BSD like hardened kernel. I do have to say that gentoo is amazingly fast on incredibly slow processors to an impressive degree, and I'm not knocking it in anyway. BSD was not really discussed in depth, and is not linux, but if your into security you may enjoy playing with openBSD.
dsr is one of an increasingly growing group of people praising Arch so I may try it out if I get time, also the optimized 64 bit support that feels as fast as source is a big claim but sounds promising. Thanks guys for your contributions this is a pretty decent thread, not what I was expecting for an off topic forum. Great analysis by both Ynot about ubuntu and dsr about more minimalist and involved distros.
Just FYI,Quote:
Originally Posted by dsr
Upstart is an event-driven replacement for the init daemon
written by Scott James Remnant of Canonical (previously a Debian maintainer)
The original SysV and BSD init systems are very linear, and do not fair well with hot-pluggable devices, or other external system changes
Say you have /usr mounted via NFS
When the boot process hits the mounting of /usr, it could potentially take a little time
(If not done so already, got to initialise networking, get IP, etc.)
Upstart uses events to trigger init scripts, making the whole thing asynchronous, and therefore much more concurrent
You can read the original Ubuntu blueprint from 2006
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReplacementInit
Upstart is also, now, used on Fedora and Palm's WebOS
This is precisely what I wanted to know, though of course I didn't know that thats what I wanted to know at the time of my OP. It seems as if the order of complexity for the init system is bsd < sys V < upstart. Is that correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by dsr
If so, then it seems logical to start with a BSD style init system and work my way up. It has been pointed out that in my OP, I was not clear about what I wanted. My gripe with ubuntu is that I don't have to do anything for it to work. Being the lazy sonofabitch that I am, if I don't have to do anything, then I don't do anything. A consequence of this, aside from having more time to surf the web, is that I don't learn anything about gnu/linux system administration. Ubuntu is too good for the lazy, just-in-time learner. I guess a better title would be, "Ubuntu doesn't annoy me enough and I am looking for an OS that will." When it comes to programming, I will seek out information just for the sake of it because I genuinely enjoy it. System administration... not so much. I do feel compelled to learn it though.
Thank you all for the great responses. I've decided that I'm going to dual boot arch and ubuntu for a while.
EDIT: I made this edit on arch with the openbox as the WM. I'm gonna skate without a DE for now I think. Thanks again for the help.
I'm glad Arch is gaining name recognition. A year ago, I didn't know a single Linux user who had heard of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanispirational
I agree that the BSDs are worth considering. OpenBSD seems a bit too focused on security (and not enough on performance) for personal use, and I remember reading a Debian article awhile back that claimed, albeit in a biased manner, that much of OpenBSD's alleged security comes from default settings such as not having various daemons or services enabled by default. The article claimed that once you start configuring your system, OpenBSD is no more secure than Debian stable. :D I'm not sure how much credence I would lend to that article, but I don't have any knowledge to the contrary. NetBSD also seems a bit too focused on supporting old hardware rather than running fast on new hardware. However, I've used FreeBSD on occasion, and it's a great OS. It has a cleaner partition ("slice") system than Linux if you have a multiboot setup, and it has a much slimmer kernel. Another nice plus is that the manpages are actually accurate. :P That being said, it doesn't seem as fast as Linux, and it doesn't have nearly as large a community backing. On the positive side for me, however, it has a BSD init system (well, duh). Like Arch Linux, it supports both binary (packages) and source (ports) package management, but it doesn't have the benefit of a rolling release system. Like Slackware, FreeBSD should be used on computers where frequent updates aren't necessary and stability is far more important than being on the bleeding edge. Some people are fine with that on a desktop or laptop; most aren't. For me, like Slackware, FreeBSD shines on a server.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanispirational
Thanks for the description. I currently mount optical and USB devices manually, but I intend to setup HAL for use with hotplugging some time in the near future. I'll look into Upstart, but it wouldn't be a reason for me to switch to Ubuntu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
I'm glad that answered your question. With all the resources that exist on the Internet, I've yet to find a single web page that actually explains to the uninitiated how the increasingly many Linux distros out there differ, and what to look for when deciding on a specific distro. I hope I've achieved that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
I wouldn't say that a BSD style init system is inherently less abstract (closer to the kernel than the keyboard) than its SysV counterpart, but it's definitely more suited to manual configuration, which is what you want if you're using a distro that encourages fewer layers of abstraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Also remember that "more advanced" distros like those I discussed in my previous post aren't just about forcing you to do more work and challenge yourself. If you know the ins and outs of your system and how to configure everything by editing text files (which btw is not very difficult to do if you know how to read), you'll be able to tailor your computing environment to fit your needs so precisely that the resulting OS will actually save you time.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
I'm glad to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
I'm glad you got passed the first install. That's probably the hardest thing you'll ever have to do with Arch. Let me encourage you to read the beginner's guide and the official installation guide on the wiki if you haven't already. They'll give you a good foundation to start with.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
That's a very good decision. I actually jumped right into an all keyboard-controlled tiling wm (Ratpoison) when I switched to Arch, so I was immersed in the command-line from the very beginning and forced to learn it well. If you want to give it a try, this excellent article will give you all the introductory info you'll need to get started with GNU screen and Ratpoison. Give it a week, and your life will never be the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
P.S. I think I've gotten the excessively long posts out of my system now. :)