Ubuntu annoys me

**DrunkenArse** · 07-15-2009 02:52 AM

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.

**Ynot** · 07-15-2009 03:50 AM

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

**[SomeGuy]** · 07-15-2009 01:57 PM

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.

**Keresztanya** · 07-15-2009 05:41 PM

I'm getting kind of sick of Ubuntu, is #! any good? I hear good things about it.

**[SomeGuy]** · 07-15-2009 05:43 PM

Is #! any good? Uhm, yes. It tells the shell where the script's interpreter is.

Not relevant.

**Keresztanya** · 07-15-2009 05:53 PM

*sigh* Crunchbang Linux http://crunchbanglinux.org/

**dsr** · 07-20-2009 04:51 AM

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.

**Ynot** · 07-20-2009 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by dsr

Some distros use entirely different init systems (e.g. Ubuntu, which uses something called Upstart).

Just FYI,
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

**DrunkenArse** · 07-20-2009 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by dsr

The main differences between most distros are package management and init system.

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?

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.

**sanispirational** · 07-20-2009 07:58 AM

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.

**dsr** · 07-22-2009 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by sanispirational

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.

I'm glad Arch is gaining name recognition. A year ago, I didn't know a single Linux user who had heard of it.

Originally Posted by sanispirational

BSD was not really discussed in depth, and is not linux, but if your into security you may enjoy playing with openBSD.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ynot

Just FYI,
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

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.