I like OpenSUSE for it's Gnome SLAB and it's system configuration interface, I like Ubuntu for it's hardware support and deb packaging system. I hate Linux in general for it's restrictive license, especially since it's way behind on support of hardware. Linux is like buying a car that can only be used on the highway, but you are not allowed to get into your own neighbourhood. You need to take the bus to reach your home. Stallman calls that freedom. My favorite is (Open)Solaris, although behind in general, they are catching up fast. And Solaris is released under a different license (Look Mom, no restrictions). I'm impressed with Solaris, and I see a lot of potential. (Open)Solaris it is!
IMO, using the ZFS as a root booting filesystem is the killer feature of Solaris right now, and I agree wilbertnl, they will soon catch up with the linux/gnu distros as a desktop alternative. It was a wise move to change the license model as well as copy the Ubuntu/Debian structure in its goal to achieve this, on top of the well-designed kernel. As a server OS, it´s hard to find a better alternative today. /C.
Really? I though it was gaining more and more. AMD/ATI, Intel.. wilbertnl, I don't see how you arrived there. You can use anyway you want it. Yes, you're free.. I used to think Linus was this or that too, but frankly, i just love both of them. I don't agree with them all the time, but i'm not them.
I forgot to mention that, you are right Cerxes: ZFS makes Firstdefense-ISR and Rollback-RX look like a big joke. And the Linux license restrictions show how it shoots in it's own foot with ZFS.
I don't know, really, where you're getting that strong opinion. Linux: ZFS, Licenses and Patents GPL 2 has been around for a while...
Ubuntu shows a warning that it uses restricted drivers, I almost feel like I'm conducting piracy when I see that warning. Kernel logs show 'tainted driver loaded' And Debian offers a stripped Mozilla browser that is called Iceweasel....
Good warning in that, it's not scarry, it's informative. And yes, Debian and Mozilla worked that solution out. I'm using Iceweasel right now. So? Did you read above about ZFS and Linux?
For me it is Ubuntu. Through the years I have occasionally tried different free distros but always grew tired of the tedious way of handling things in Linux world. The latest Ubuntu 8.10 is a breeze to install, it was easier and way faster than Vista or any Windows installation or earlier versions of ubuntu and other distros(about 10-15 minutes!) I didnt have to tell it anything. Maybe it is because of Wubi though? If I did a straight install I´d have to tell it about resolution and stuff? but anyhow being a linux noob as I am I like the way they have moved a way from having to use the terminal for most of the tasks. But maybe it is like that in all other distros too nowadays? I havent tried other than Ubuntu for a bout a year now. I havent migrated yet coz I still play high end games so it is easier to stay with windows. But I find my self spending more and more time on Ubuntu.
I also see an interesting dilemma for GNU/Linux as OpenSolaris will be able to use GNU/Linux code, but GNU/Linux won’t be to use OpenSolaris code. My point was that Rich is considering making other portions of our “CDDL only” portfolio available to the GPL community - including elements like ZFS, which are today in BSD, OpenSolaris, etc., but not Linux. (Executive Vice President, Software) Rich Green is leading the charge…” Porting ZFS to Linux is complicated by the fact that the GNU General Public License, which governs the Linux kernel, prohibits linking with code under certain licenses, such as CDDL, the license ZFS is released under.
wilbertnl, it seems you're saying i'm right. They're even changing from that license to the GPL, like Java. The GPL exists for quite some time now, and the CCDL was created well after the GPL. Showing that they can use GPL projects and not the other way, only makes it worse.
Pedro, I'm not sure about what you are right with. (And I don't intent to start a debate about right or wrong, or good and bad, I just wonder). The issue that bothers me is that FreeBSD has a license that seems much more flexible than GPL. ZFS is already implemented there (I didn't verify that information). FreeBSD doesn't give me a warning when I use a Atheros driver or a nVidia driver. By publishing their software under multiple licenses, Solaris is trying to reach out to Linux. Linux or Stallman don't deserve credit for that. I'm sure that there is a lot that I simply don't understand and don't care about. When I buy a system, I just want to install any operating system and get full support for the hardware. Recently I got a Compaq-CQ50 notebook, and it's even challenging to install Windows XP on it, since drivers are not directly available. I got it working after many frustrating hours. Now I need to find the drivers to get OpenSolaris and Linux installed on it. Sigh. And this baby has hardware support for virtualization, which makes me want to play with Xen and OpenVZ. Oh, and isn't it true that the BSD license is older than GPL? And Solaris has a history of centuries, compared to Linux. Anyway, OpenSolaris is potent!
At the moment Foresight Linux is topping my favourite list. It looks great and makes things easy for linux newbs like me.
btw the thing i dont like about linux is a fault of certain vendors. once you installl nvidia graphics driver you get a nvidia splash screen everytime you start your computer. since i paid for the hardware i should be able to use it with any operating system i choose. when you install an nvidia driver on windows i dont get a splash screen from nvidia everytime i start my pc so i shouldnt on linux. if people want an operating system with only free software let them have it but dont stop me from using proprietary drivers or have an annoying splash screen basically saying you are using a tainted kernal. i dont know why ATI and Nvidia dont open sourse there drivers anyway. would it really revel any secrets? surely if Nvidia open soursed all there drivers more people would buy there graphics cards? which would force ATI to do the same? or other way around.
Think about it... the proprietary driver is showing a splash screen. Why is this the fault of anyone (!) but the HW manufacturer? It's their driver and their installer. To remove it: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/NVIDIA#Disable_NVIDIA_Graphics_Logo_on_startup You're right, forget that. Why would Stallman want credit for the ZFS? Hell, what does Stallman have to do with this? He wrote a license a long time ago, which he updates as threats emerge, to defend free software. He released software under that license, and projected a whole free OS. That's it. If it was up to him, i bet there were no license. At least patents would not exist. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but you must separate the issues. He isn't actively trying to sabotage ZFS.. ZFS showed up, and its license is incompatible by birth. At least AFAIK. It's a HW manufacturer thing. Lets again separate some more: 1- you want a driver, even if it's non free. OK. Get it and install it. Same thing on any OS. Why isn't it already available? For a variety of reasons, here's 2: a) it's not free. Even the BSD guys, who really are more open (Stallman has 0 issues with them afaik), they tell you clearly - we want free software, not blobs. They want to check for bugs for one thing. Yes they concede and accept. Yet companies don't turn to it as much as Linux. License does have a role, but it's upside down to what you would expect. GPL defends itself. b) it's not supported. As Linux evolves and the driver is not longer supported, they can't guarantee it still works. They do not have source or the power to update or fix it. 2- If it doesn't exist, it's not possible. We can both agree on that. Yes, BSD is older. OpenSolaris no. Solaris maybe, i don't know that much about it. Taking Wikipedia for granted SunUnix/OS ~1982/83.
I do not need this kind of belittling, I'm able to take care of myself: There doesn't seem to be a risk when I use Windows, Solaris or FreeBSD with similar drivers. Solaris is praised for backwards binary compatiblity for many releases. Drivers don't expire as they age.
Changing my mind slightly now: If I have to use linux for hardware support (such as suspending to RAM, proprietary nvidia driver), then: Crux has become my new favorite just on how simple, light, and speedy it is (by far the fastest distro I've used yet that isn't loaded completely in RAM) However, I still heavily favor the BSD's. If the computer is newer and I want to get as much speed out of it (and has a 64 bit support and 2 GB RAM or higher) I will use FreeBSD -CURRENT (ZFS is really nice....). However, if the computer is older and doesn't match those requirements, then OpenBSD -CURRENT is my choice, especially now that DRM is being worked into the kernel.... Also, it is great as a gateway and firewall with pf, by far the best firewall for me I've seen, ever. Cheers, Alphalutra1
eek: CRUX scary Just 1s and 0s I know but intimidating: heh: see how far you are along the track From a review Alpha you're way on up the line. For me,sigh; still such a llooonngg way to go.. OOI why CRUX??
I was distro hopping in the beginning until i found archlinux. Now i have stuck with it for a long time and i can't imagine switching to anything else ever again. IF for some reason i couldn't use arch i would probably go with another rolling distro such as sidux. Fedora, ubuntu and opensuse are also excellent and i always give them as an example to anyone who want's to try linux (i mostly recommend ubuntu for beginners since it's the easiest to setup and get to work out-of-the-box imho).
