Your ratings of Linux distro's

dangerstat

dangerstat

dangerstat

Soldato
Joined
15 Nov 2008
Posts
5,060
Location
In the ether
I'm getting a bit annoyed with people saying one distro is better than another (though I do it occasionally too) I'd rather people rate them on a number of areas so I thought I'd start a thread on it.

categories (mark out of 10)
[A] Stability
Package installation and management
[C] Modernity of packages
[D] Support whether official or unofficial (forums etc.)


For me:
Debian [A] 9 6 [C] 4 [D] 8
RHEL [A] 9 9 [C] 7 [D] 9
SuSe [A] 6 8 [C] 9 [D] 7
Fedora [A] 4 5 [C] 9 [D] 7
Ubuntu [A] 6 7 [C] 8 [D] 10

Cheers

Dangerstat
 
Not to rain on your parade, but why do you rate Ubuntu's package management higher than Debian's? They both use Debian's system and with a few largely inconsequential differences are the same.

In the vast majority of cases stability and freshness of packages exist at opposite ends of the same continuum. Older, vetted, packages are tested and observed ad nauseam to become vetted until they, usually, are old. Bleeding-edge packages contain all the fun new stuff that you've always wanted except that they lack the bugfixes and tweaks that come later in life.
 
Mine are as follows:

Arch: [A] 8 9 [C] 9 [D] 8
Gentoo: [A] 6 8 [C] 8 [D] 5
Debian: [A] 8 6 [C] 3 [D] 7

Currently running Arch x64 on my MBP and loving it ;)
 
For me:
Ubuntu [A] 9 9 [C] 8 [D] 10

I have tried various others but have not got on with them for various reason so would be unfair of me to judge them.
 
BillytheImpaler said:
Not to rain on your parade, but why do you rate Ubuntu's package management higher than Debian's? They both use Debian's system and with a few largely inconsequential differences are the same.

In the vast majority of cases stability and freshness of packages exist at opposite ends of the same continuum. Older, vetted, packages are tested and observed ad nauseam to become vetted until they, usually, are old. Bleeding-edge packages contain all the fun new stuff that you've always wanted except that they lack the bugfixes and tweaks that come later in life.
Click to expand...

What he said :)

Oxy said:
its called pacman <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< lol
Click to expand...

Not to sound snobby, but GD is thatta'way! :p

/turns nose
 
satb inst mod sup
Fedora Core 5 5 7 8
Ubuntu 7 9 9 8
Debian 10 9 3 1
Xubuntu 7 9 9 5
Puppy 2 1 5 6


My ideal distro would be Debian, with modern and nonfree packages, with more preconfiguredness. Or Ubuntu with root and more Debian like layout.
 
BillytheImpaler said:
Not to rain on your parade, but why do you rate Ubuntu's package management higher than Debian's? They both use Debian's system and with a few largely inconsequential differences are the same.

In the vast majority of cases stability and freshness of packages exist at opposite ends of the same continuum. Older, vetted, packages are tested and observed ad nauseam to become vetted until they, usually, are old. Bleeding-edge packages contain all the fun new stuff that you've always wanted except that they lack the bugfixes and tweaks that come later in life.
Click to expand...

I'd say your opinion is clearly based on different experiences than me. My main (and often only) way of obtaining packages is to use the installation media, and hence why rate Ubuntu higher in those areas. I should stress that my machine runs Debian so just being fair.
 
:confused: Debian puts out EVERYTHING on CDs. Ubuntu has but one disk with installable packages on it. Seems that without 'net access Debian would win in spades.

I should stress that my machine is running Ubuntu so just being fair. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom