Even epic failures are beneficial to Linux as a whole, and those who are willing to take the big risks (developers) deserve our respect and thanks, no matter what distro we're using. I just see contribution, growth, and further experimentation to make Linux better and better. That's what's so cool about having so many distros to choose from! So much invention and innovation, it's wonderful! But competition? I don't really see that. All have their own brand of awesomeness and each contributes a great deal to the party. We looked at RPM distros and Slackware derivatives, Debian, Mepis, Crunchbang, SalixOS, and PCLinuxOS (KDE and Xfce). When they stopped basing Mint Xfce on Xubuntu and went to the Debian-based version, it became troublesome to install and harder to figure out, and a lot of stuff broke often enough for us to "run home" to the Ubuntu-based stuff that always worked reliably and trouble free on his computer. Mint Xfce was imaginative, simple, and pretty! I loved it. But I can do that in Ubuntu as well, and it is my default choice (LTS versions only, security updates only). It's great for beginners and probably prevents a lot of problems that beginners might ordinarily find in Ubuntu though, if you set updates to "Level One" only (security and "Mint Approved" updates). Mint Xfce 9 was my first Linux distro and it was wonderful! But as my mentor and I explored Linux a bit more, we decided that - for us at least - the wonderful "safety net" that Mint had for it's update manager and the way they set up Synaptic Package Manager was too confining. And most of that stuff is interchangeable anyway. I'm interested that a topic about probably the most competing distro gets buried in recurring " Competing distro?" I don't think that's a good word for it, since almost all Linux distros are free (as in cost) simply offer different default settings, default applications, default desktops, etc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |