# Which GNU/Linux distro to try?



## freemason (Oct 5, 2012)

Good morning, users.

Don't some of you have any suggestions on what GNU/Linux distro to try after swimming in FreeBSD?

I generally chose these: Gentoo, Slackware, No distro (a so-called "Linux From Scratch").


So, which one is more fundamental (simpler, causes less headache, is more controllable) and more FreeBSD-like in some aspects to your opinion? (years ago I've already tried tons of really stupid and useless distros like Ubuntu, Debian, ArchLinux (was favorite), Fedora, Mandriva, ASP, and so on - so please don't suggest them until you really need to)


Thanks.


----------



## graudeejs (Oct 5, 2012)

Arch linux, but it has it's own bugs features


----------



## throAU (Oct 5, 2012)

Slackware.  It's more like BSD than the others.  New release this week too.

Like FreeBSD, Slackware has minimal distro hacks on the software they include, it is as "true" to the original source for each app as possible.


----------



## alie (Oct 5, 2012)

Arch Linux but it tends to break your system due to rolling.


----------



## freemason (Oct 5, 2012)

Will I be able to rebuild kernel and base system, and build everything by hand with my own compile options instead of just installing precompiled packages in Arch like I do in FreeBSD???


----------



## Majorix (Oct 5, 2012)

Debian Sid - the only rolling release Linux distro that doesn't break!


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 5, 2012)

This is a startup of a same thread which is also the same as a million others all over the internet and also quite a few on this board. I suggest you ask this question on a Linux forum, not here, or at least Google for the countless same ones.


----------



## freemason (Oct 5, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> This is a startup of a same thread which is also the same as a million others all over the internet and also quite a few on this board. I suggest you ask this question on a Linux forum, not here, or at least Google for the countless same ones.


No, this is not the same thread!



> Have some non-FreeBSD related questions, or want just to chit-chat about anything that is not related to FreeBSD? This is the forum for you.


So, here we are.


----------



## prp-e (Oct 5, 2012)

If you want a out-of-the-box distro , try JabirOS ---> http://jabirproject.org


----------



## UNIXgod (Oct 5, 2012)

I've been running Funtoo (a better Gentoo) on my laptop for a couple of years now. I'm pretty satisfied with it.

Definitely out of the few that I have played with gets close to the FreeBSD experience.

Here is a link:

http://www.funtoo.org


----------



## Grell (Oct 5, 2012)

I second using Debian Sid.  It's not totally like FreeBSD but it is reliable, pretty easy to use, and hardly ever (if ever) has broken on me.


----------



## jwele (Oct 5, 2012)

If you are going to rule out Arch and Debian (Did you try Debian Unstable?) then I would say you will like Slackware the most in terms of it being "arch like." There is also a "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD", or Debian with a FreeBSD kernel you might want to try out. 

http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD


----------



## UNIXgod (Oct 6, 2012)

jwele said:
			
		

> If you are going to rule out Arch and Debian (Did you try Debian Unstable?) then I would say you will like Slackware the most in terms of it being "arch like." There is also a "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD", or Debian with a FreeBSD kernel you might want to try out.
> 
> http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD



I never really understood those projects. I've run gentoo/alt/prefix on OSX and understand why one would use something like that there. But for all practical purposes kFreeBSD makes little sense than just running FreeBSD or DragonFlyBSD.

Also Debian Unstable is called Debian Sid. Sounds like it's popular. If I ever tire of Funtoo I may give that a try.


----------



## nekoexmachina (Oct 10, 2012)

Used arch for a while on linux desk, then switched to Ubuntu due to continious breakage, and then they've adopted systemd, so I was pretty right at that decision 
Love the 'just works' attitude it has, however if 'just working'' thing works not like it should had, thats much more disturbing & hard to fix than something that you configure by yourself. Thinking of moving to bsd or funtoo.


----------



## throAU (Oct 11, 2012)

I ran Debian sid for ages (about 5 years), and when it is working, it's great.

If you're only running a desktop, all good.  If your desktop is occasionally broken for a little while, who cares, right?  The breakage isn't /often/ but it does happen occasionally.

However, if you plan to run services on it - be careful.  Sometimes the package tree will break in interesting ways, and you need to be pretty cluey with the package management tools to un-fubar it.

I still think that if you're a BSD guy - Slackware is probably the closest in terms of philosophy, packages, init scripts, etc.


----------



## freemason (Nov 26, 2012)

Trying arch now. Well, practically everything (I mean hardware) works well after fine-tuning (especially "videocard" - full acceleration (2D and 3D) + Kernel Mode Setting (nice and smooth for console-only work), ACPI works well, so do sleep and hibernation). Powersaving is really amazing: battery life is longer than it is on Windows (6-7 hours now and I think that even more is possible, but 5 hours in Windows), unlike FreeBSD which is only about 2-3 hours.
Some final steps in polishing the system still remain (fonts, applications for daily use, and so on).

Thanks everyone!
If I'll need server for something I'll definitely try FreeBSD on it (for its logic and simple configuration), but stick with Linux on laptop for now (for its hardware support).
Cheers.


----------



## ColdfireMC (Dec 3, 2012)

slackware is good but community has an awful mess with distro's evolution, slackware still lacks an official automatic package manager, slapt-get works, but it is almost a roulette. one of the nice things is its installation, you can install the latest-non release packages when installing, and also is one of the fastest and complete installations of GNU/linux world, you can install a complete software set (near 5gb of software) in only 20-30 mins, and it's ready to use.
also has the rescue mode


----------



## sossego (Dec 3, 2012)

My suggestion is for the following three Le Unix distributions:
1. FreeBSD
2. OpenBSD
3. NetBSD


----------



## nakal (Dec 3, 2012)

I guess, every Linux distribution that does not use systemd is less annoying. I am running Arch, but since they have migrated to systemd, both my PCs are broken. And running Arch on compatibility mode (init) has lots of side issues which are less broken than systemd but still annoying.


----------



## throAU (Dec 6, 2012)

Actually, I just installed Mint last night.

Seems nice for a desktop - automatically could use my afp shares, fonts all look nice, the UI (cinnamon) looks clean and unobtrusive.

Sure, it's still Linux and comes with the associated baggage, but so far it looks fairly slick in the limited time I've spent with it.


----------



## Majorix (Dec 6, 2012)

Looks is the best (and only?) good thing about Mint. I have used it once, and couldn't even install the updates, it just broke.


----------



## throAU (Dec 6, 2012)

Hmm... updates worked OK for me last night.


----------



## Majorix (Dec 6, 2012)

Please note that I have tried it a few years ago, around the time the first version was released. Things might have changed.


----------



## vermaden (Dec 6, 2012)

> Which GNU/Linux distro to try?


Try one without all bloated and broken by design stuff like *initrd*, *hald*, *udev*, *pulseaudio*, *systemd*, *alsa* ... oh wait


----------



## GreekGoddess87 (Mar 21, 2013)

TinyCore! It quite rocks... Gets plenty of customisation and it's fast. (although it didn't even boot on my asus1005ha netbook, don't know why - but on my older system it ran perfectly). Also, there's INX, entirely in console, no graphical interfaces. It's pretty cool & fun, if you want to try something new, *I* guess 

*W*hy did you say Debian, Arch and Fedora are stupid and useless? Anyway, it's all about what you need of a system and which one better covers as much of your needs as possible. E.g. I had switched to Arch for: speed, integrity, neat documentation, customisability, and the fact that along with these I could get a variety of apps.


----------



## ab (Mar 22, 2013)

I do not see it in the responses thus far and I've had a few decent experiences with it, so consider OpenSUSE.

The following piqued my interest in revisiting a workstation installation of the same:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/15/suse_linux_12_3_review/

Cheers!


----------



## h3z (Mar 22, 2013)

Well, I have not installed it on any of my machines, but my wife needs an new OS and Frugalware is on my list for her to try . She is not ready to jump into The FreeBSD boat with me . But, she is wants to try something other than the Debian distro . But, like I said, I have not installed it on mine, or any other machine for that matter yet . But, from my research, I think it might server her needs well .


----------



## nekoexmachina (Mar 22, 2013)

I've been forced to install Linux Ubuntu on my fresh laptop(no support for ethernet or wifi on FreeBSD, BCM4313 for wifi and some Atheros crap for eth)
Its either I'm a fanatic after using FreeBSD for last years either I don't know what, but I find linux unsatisfying at all. 
E.g., there are some really small paper-cut things that bother me, and I can't even explain well to anyone in s/w. They are not bugs, they are just differensies between 2 different implementations of the tools (coreutils, sed, awk, etc), some really strange default configurations for almost everything. 
After all it finished with a strange system breakage after following Wiki page on installing Bumblebee. 
The last one disgusted me the most:
I've just copy-and-pasted apt-add-repo blah blah && apt-get intall bumblebee and after that, well, everything just broke. First X didn't start, then X start, but with glitches & without openGL direct rendering, then I've managed to revert bumblebee changes but still had no openGL. 

The thing is, as of my experience, if it works on FreeBSD (*BSD actually), you need to do almost nothing to get it working, and if it is not - it is just, well, not. 
And on Linux - if it works, you need to kick your brains out trying to figure out why it is not, and if it doesn't work, you still need to kick your brains out cause you've found on somelinuxforum that it worked for some guy.

After all the ubuntu installation finished as a rage-quit for me, and I'm waiting for my half-size intel 5100 mini-pci-e wifi adapter will get in my hands.


----------



## h3z (Mar 23, 2013)

If someone really wanted to play around with Linux and likes FreeBSD, what they should do is download Draco Linux*.* It is a Linux base only, with the exception that it is set up similar to a BSD OS*.* It was made with the intent to be like a BSD Linux, and done so that is can run "pkgsrc" (the NetBSD source based package manager) without bootstrapping it for a Linux system*.* So, it can use pkgsrc like if it were a BSD OS*.* Draco also uses rc.d and OSS4.2  

A while back I had thought about making a Linux base suitable for the FreeBSD ports system*.* But then decided that I would just use FreeBSD*.*

pkgsrc has been working on making itself more portable to other systems*.* Like Haiku and Minix . So there are a lot of resources there for what is required to use it on other systems then NetBSD*.* Like how to bootstrap*.* Maybe with a Linux base like Draco, and some tweaking similar to those required for pkgsrc to run on Linux, one could get the FreeBSD ports to run on Linux*.*

This would probably be the best type of Linux around, if someone did it well*.* A "LinuxBSD"*.* The only thing you would have is different hardware support, and a whole lot less community support*.* But, in my opinion that would still be better than using a mainstream Linux*.*

You know, if someone was just playing around*.*


----------



## h3z (Mar 23, 2013)

Well, I guess one could just use Gentoo. It would save the time and work of tweaking. So much for my thoughts.


----------



## X3RNAL9AN1C (Mar 24, 2013)

There are three distros *I* have used that _I_ would say are "BSD-Like"


Arch - this is my personal favorite. *I*t*'*s the least painful to set up and maint*ai*n on a good day. Problem is Arch is both rolling release and and *b*leeding edge, bad days happen. *B*oth binaries and source software is available (although it hardly compares to the ports tree)
Gentoo - this is another good one. Gentoo gives the user complete control. It*'*s ble*e*ding edge but not to the level of Arch. Gentoo uses Portage as its package manager, it is kind of similar to the ports tree (not as good IMO, but that*'*s me. *R*egardless there are plenty of overlays to add to it.). *O*ne thing about Gentoo is there *are* no binary packages.
Slackware - This is the most vanilla Linux you can get. *T*hey don*'*t mess with upstream to*o* much. Slackware is also the most stable of these three. *O*ne thing that may annoy you with Slackware is it do*es* not resolve dependices dependencies for you. im I'm not as familiar with Slackware as *I* am with Arch or Gentoo.

All three are rolling release distros by the way.

There is another distro you may be interested in. its It's called CRUX. ive I've heard it*'*s very BSD-Like, ive I've never used it though. im I'm assuming you like these more involve*d* style of operating systems.


----------



## h3z (Mar 24, 2013)

I kind of made that same assumption. Very good list though. I think CRUX is 64bit only. Not that some one couldn't get the sources. Most people would be fine with that 64bit anyway.


----------



## CurlyTheStooge (Mar 24, 2013)

X3RNAL9AN1C said:
			
		

> one thing that may annoy you with slackware is it dose not resolve dependices for you.



In actual, Slackware users consider that a feature and most of the Slackers(including me) had started using Slackware for the same reason.
If it would come with a dependency resolution package management, it won't be Slackware anymore.

Regards.


----------



## h3z (Mar 24, 2013)

CurlyTheStooge said:
			
		

> In actual, Slackware users consider that a feature and most of the Slackers(including me) had started using Slackware for the same reason.
> If it would come with a dependency resolution package management, it won't be Slackware anymore.
> 
> Regards.



Never understood why dependencies couldn't be controlled by a matrix in a simple file.
Then you could use Slackware with or without dependency resolution. I guess someone should just leave Slackware as it is liked, and develop a fork for the whiners like me. Salix and the like don't cut it.


----------



## CurlyTheStooge (Mar 24, 2013)

h3z said:
			
		

> Then you could use Slackware with or without dependency resolution.



I don't think dependency management is such a simple phenomenon which can be added as an 'optional' package in Slackware tree. Its obviously an overhead on the package maintainers too. I certainly find Slackbuild's approach rather better in this regard.

Regards.


----------



## h3z (Mar 24, 2013)

CurlyTheStooge said:
			
		

> I don't think dependency management is such a simple phenomenon which can be added as an 'optional' package in Slackware tree. Its obviously an overhead on the package maintainers too. I certainly find Slackbuild's approach rather better in this regard.
> 
> Regards.



What I meant is that very basic package resolution could be achieved. Not every satisfaction would be had with basic resolution. But, enough to prove useful to the non-elite. 

No, you are quite right. And, with a team of one, Patrick doesn't need an excuse not to bother with package resolution. I always preferred Slackyd. But, even if a user matrix was available, it could be taken and implemented in slackyd. Thus extending the third party repository, with the original Slackware packages. Then one could install the Slackware base and build up, without having embraced the experience required to do so. I admit that a user of any system would be better knowing what depends on what. It is just one more step in the right direction. But, not everyone is ready for that step. And, maybe they shouldn't use Slackware. But, such a beautiful linux among the waste land of bloated distributions seems to good, for only the Slack elite.

If I wasn't using FreeBSD, I would be building a personal distribution with Slackware as a base.

I also agree that source based package management is far lighter on maintainers. I fear that FreeBSD will adopt to that thinking more and more. Which would give more resources to the systems actual development. 

I myself like having the ability to collect a current enough state of a repository, for local net-less functionality. It isn't considered widely important to most anymore. But, in some areas you still have internet access with bandwidth restrictions. Or, in the case of satellite you can be without access for long periods of time, or spotty unreliable segments of time. In cases like this, is nice to have local repository access. Distfile collections are not so nice for this sort of situation. They have multiple version of many programs grouped together with no easy way to collect only the selection of the distfiles you require. I could go on and on about the problems involved in trying to acquire a full repository of sources. Slackbuild not having its own distfile collection would make this an even more daunting task. But, Slackbuild uses direct developer sources for the benefit of itself and its users.

With that said, the Slackbuild option is still a good one for many. I would not down play its value at all. I would just hate to get stuck with Debian or something. They do provide a full repository (free software only) on disk still. I guess Frugalware isn't that bad, as another alternative.

I am just too picky. Really too picky when you consider the software is free.

You can't please every user.

Good point though, CurlyTheStooge.


----------



## celle4bsd (Mar 24, 2013)

> Try one without all bloated and broken by design stuff like initrd, hald, udev, pulseaudio, systemd, alsa ...



That kind of wipes everything except Plan9/Inferno doesn't it?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 25, 2013)

And that's only one reason not to use any Linux.


----------



## h3z (Mar 30, 2013)

Well, I found a Linux for my *w*ife. Its the closest to FreeBSD I could *f*ind. So, if you have to try Linux, give this one a shot. Sabayon. It uses rc.conf/rc.d, has binary packages, and Gentoo portage. All of the packages are made from Gentoo sources. And, the packages can be installed on Gentoo. So, it is really close to FreeBSD. But, still Linux. Really, it is probably only good enough for your *w*ife's computer.

I guess it uses OpenRC. Not rc.d.


----------



## _martin (Mar 30, 2013)

As many has mentioned already, I too came from Slackware (9.0) to FreeBSD. It obeys the rules of simplicity and keeps the data organized. As I used to compile a lot of the software myself, it was possible to keep the the custom software in dedicated location (/opt, /usr/local). Hence I'd recommend Slackware as a very good starting point. 

True is keeping the software up-to-date (especially when you do it all yourself) is time consuming. Due to this I have Debian in my virtual machine - easy to deploy and still configuration is straightforward. So give it a try with Debian too.


----------

