Your experiences with different distros

[DRE.ORGY.NET]

Hi,

I just wondered what other peoples' experiences have been after trying a few other distros and what some of the highlights they would like to point out.

I really dont want to start another distro war thread, what I really want to know is what other people have decided after coming into contact with a few different distros.

I have used the following (in no specific order):
rhl 7,8,9 : mdk 7,8,9 : slackware 10,10.1 : gentoo 2005.0 : knoppix (I forgot which version exactly)

From my own personal experiences there are generally two or three different types of distro.

1) Does everything for you, everything works pretty much out of the box. You dont really need to do much configurating yourself and your generally up and running pretty quickly

2) Most things are done for you if not there is a wizard for it somewhere, everything generally works out of the box yet there may be some configuration you need to do to make things fit. Setup is a little slower but in general most things are there once you install

3) Nothing is done for you, you need to install everything. Everything needs to be configured so it works, once you install the base system your on your own. You will still need to spend some further time installing each application you want.

With those 3 groupings you can probably already see where each of the distro's I've tried fits.

At the moment what I am looking for is to be somewhere between the 2-3 mark. That is a distro that installs fairly easily and at least attempts to configure my hardware for me (giving me the option to change things if I wish), if some things dont work properly I dont mind coming back and doing that myself after install.

Another big thing is of course updating, now there is no point in installing a distro that doesnt have a good system to update itself. One problem that this causes though is dependancies which is a whole nightmare on its own. Even the best updating systems can break sometimes due to depencances and incorrect versions.

At the moment I am using both FC3 and Gentoo. I find both of these to be great in their own ways. I have been using FC3 for about 8 months now and was fairly happy with it but I decided to try Gentoo to learn more about the in's and out's of linux. I am not sure weather I will stick with Gentoo or move over to FC4 because I both distos have some things which I dislike.

On one had FC is generally pretty good out of the box most things are taken care of and I can start to do my everyday things almost straight away. Although I tend to use a whole heap of non-standard apps which I have to build from source and there have been times when it has been a headache or I have given up trying on FC3.

On the other hand with Gentoo I know exactly what I have installed and building from source is generally pretty straight forward. My only issue is that sometimes you get a bit lazy and dont really feel like recompiling (emerge) an app just because you didnt add support for a certain feature the first time, the other thing is the ebuilds are generally pretty slow to update especially for non standard apps (eg dvd::rip I had issues with this on both distros). After the install you come out learning a lot and feel a sense of accomplishment, but that wore off when I was trying to play a dvd with mplayer and realised I hadnt compiled dvd support into it.

I have yet to try Debain I hope that a Debain user reads this so they might give me a bit of insight. I have been using Slackware 10.1 for some time on my laptop now and I think its a very stable distro but a bit dated. I am still happy with it though and might start using it a bit more.

From what I have seen from the linux distros lately a lot of distros are starting to target the new user hoping to win them over from Windows, what I think has lacked though is few distros have tried to maintain the the large amount of people who have already made the switch and after seeing what applications the open source communities have to offer and want to take advantage of these applications are finding it harder to do so because the distro focuses more on the new user and not enough on the intermediate - advanced user.


I'd love to know what your guys thoughts are.

[dwflo]

I tend to agree with you. I have tried many of them, some would fail to install, like Gentoo, Mandriva, Slackware and Debian.

Many Live CD or DVDs, gave me a feel for that distro. Most would operate with my hardware. If the Live version was interesting, then I would install it. The installed version never worked as well as the Live version, do not understand why.

I have had Solaris, Suse, Knoppix, Kubuntu, Ark Linux, Vida Linux, Scientific Linux, SimplyMEPIS and CentOS, just to name a few, installed at one time or another.
They have their good and bad, but most were acceptible. At the moment I have Ubuntu installed. It is bare of applications, but runs well, a few crashes here and there. The OSS Suse is still in beta and has many bugs, but once they get to a final rease, I suspect it will be equivalent to Suse Professional.

All in all, I find Fedora to be the most stable. As far as the packages are concerned, rpms tend too be more flexible with less problems. Compiling in Fedora is more successfull and better success with hardware. The installation is flawless, every time I have done a re-install.
Any of the others are acceptible distros, I rank most of them even. The distros that are based on the Red Hat core tend to be stable and flawless.

Another factor for me was the desktop that is used as the default. KDE was more problematic than Gnome. KDE had more trouble with hardware recognition and the GUI had issues with windows, plus many other irretations. Had no such problems, when Gnome was the defualt.

Dave

[jtang613]

I've been a RedHat user since version 7 and have since used RH7, 7.1, 7.2, 8, 9, FC1, FC2, FC3, and now FC4. I've become very comfortable with the RedHat way of doing things. And I also like the fact that the distro continues to improve and adopt new technologies.

I've also tried several other distros: Slackware, Mandrake, Suse, Gentoo, Caldera (now SCO) and Corel (now defunct). I had good experiences with most - but RH/FC was a better fit for my needs.

Slackware and Gentoo are great distros if you want to learn more about the ins and outs of Linux since configuration is mostly manual. This also offers a huge degree of control and often provides a more streamlined and responsive system. The downside is that it takes a significant amount of time to install, configure and update these systems.

I've found Suse and (Mandrake) to be very GUI (gooey). Attempting to manually edit config files can be troublesome. These distros are probably best for people switching from Windows for the first time. They are both good distros and have a large following, but they're just not what I'm looking for.

I suppose one of the things I like most about Fedora is that it provides a good mix of GUI and manual configuration options. Not too CLI, not too GUI.

Debian has historically been 'the other Linux'. In the early days - and even today - there are two main templates that other distros base their systems on: RedHat and Debian. I tried to install Debian once a couple years ago, but it kept bugging out for some reason I can't remember. I'm sure they have progressed a long way since then. Most Debian users are very happy with their distro, and there are lots of them, so it must be doing something right. I believe this is the least commercial distro out there. They pride themselves in their support and adherance to OSS, GNU, FSF standards. One of these days I plan on trying it out on a spare drive to see whats new.

m2c,
Jason

[elliss]

Originally Posted by DRE.ORGY.NET

On one had FC is generally pretty good out of the box most things are taken care of and I can start to do my everyday things almost straight away. Although I tend to use a whole heap of non-standard apps which I have to build from source and there have been times when it has been a headache or I have given up trying on FC3.

The problem that I usually hit is that Fedora adopts new technology before third-party developers do, so there is a delay between the latest Fedora release and the third-party developers catching up. For example, the current release of QEMU is incompatible with GCC4 (released with FC4), so I'm currently using tchung's QEMU package which includes GCC4 fixes.

Sometimes, though, it's the way around - development code with dependencies on other development code which isn't available yet on stable systems. Without knowing what you are trying to compile it's hard to say whether you might be better with a more conservative distribution (like Debian), or a more bleeding-edge one (like Gentoo), or whether your problem could be solved by adding a third-party repository like ATRPMS.

FWIW, I liked a lot of things about SUSE when I ran it a couple of years ago, but one of things that stopped me from sticking with it was compatibility - some SUSE packages were heavily patched, and a lot of third-party developers weren't very interested in building packages compatible with SUSE. It'll be interesting to see whether OpenSUSE helps things improve.

[mugs]

I started with Suse 8.0, have used Suse 9.0, 9.1, Ubuntu, Mepis, Mandrake 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10.0, RedHat 8, 9, Fedora 2, 3, 4.

My best experiences have been with Fedora.

I like the ability to use so many different distros.

[dwflo]

One of these days I am going to get Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, BSD and Mandriva installed. I will not rest util I have a chance to test drive them all.

Dave

[DRE.ORGY.NET]

Originally Posted by dwflo

One of these days I am going to get Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, BSD and Mandriva installed. I will not rest util I have a chance to test drive them all.

Dave

I remembered using Suse for a little while on my laptop it seemed to work fine but as mentioned above I did stop using it due to compatibility issues.

Mandiva will be really easy to pick up, you will probably enjoy the fact that so many things are already there and done for you the downside is installing other applications often becomes quite a task (going by my experiences from mdk) and more often than not can break other things.

Gentoo is a big leap, the first time I tried to install it I felt as though I had just jumped into the deep end of the pool and didnt quite feel comfortable starting from there (I tried installing 2004.0) I tried a year later with 2005.0.

BSD I have been meaning to give this a try but have been put off because I am not sure there is the same open source software community support for BSD as there is for linux.

If I am to try another distro it will probably be debain only because most other smaller distros are spin off's of larger ones or a really focused on a specific goal. Maybe one day I will buy myself a small rack and get a few rackable pc's and try out clustering which by what I have read is a whole different playing field.

[dwflo]

Clustering would interesting to attempt. Can get some real processing power there.
I think it is time to start collecting some throw aways.

Dave

[stickman]

Have tried & tested several distros over the past few months looking for the right blend of performance, speed, flexibility, and functionality. Here are a few of my thoughts.

All distros tested on the following setup-
AMD Athlon XP 2800
1 Gig PC 2700 DDR Ram
MSI KT4V Ultra mobo (Via KT 400)
Radeon 9200 SE AGP
Dual Maxtor 80 gig 7200 RPM Hard Drives
** /boot, /root, /home and 1 gig swap on hda
** /shared (fat32) on hdb for home network accessible via smb
/hdc = LG DVD/CDRW combo
/hdd = NEC DVD +R/RW writer

Gentoo --> Nice distro, too many moving parts, easy to break once you have a working install. Great support community.
Mandriva --> Another nice distro., but too bloated, not too thrilled with urpmi
Suse --> Would put this in the same category as Mandriva, not enough out of the box functionality, (mad, dvd, etc...)
Mepis --> Nice but slow, debian package management is good, lots of tweaking to get it where you want it.
Ubuntu --> Sudo? whatever.. not enough control over the distro out of the box. Fast, but not what I'm looking for.
PC Linux OS --> Mandriva roots but less bloated, cereal box linux IMO, but good community support.
Xandros --> Visually appealing, nice layout, debian based, pkg support outside Xandros tree can be a challenge.
Vector --> Super fast, based on slackware, fairly stable, but tweaking can be difficult.
PC BSD --> Nice BSD desktop os.. pkg management is simple , got growing to do, but future releases should be great.
Blag --> Scaled down version of Fedora with multimedia and file sharing in mind. Good transition for Winblows users.
Yoper --> Another fast distro, small user base, can be a bit buggy, performance at the sacrifice of stability.
Slackware --> Another right of passage, solid distro, not quite on the bleeding edge, manual everything, not for me.
Damn Small --> Lightweight linux distro, fun to use, debian based, not enough power for me...
Vida Linux --> Gentoo stage 3 install on a combonitation of anaconda with crack, slow IMO, but has potential.
Symphony --> Still in the baby stages... Visually beautiful, has a long way to go. install blows.
My favorites:
Arch Linux --> Awesome 686 distro, highly flexible, minimal., pacman pkg management is solid, kde buggy at times.
Fedora --> Comprehensive install, yum rocks, great communityt, highly flexible, nice solid distro, solid performance.

Winner for me is Fedora.. Kudzu is solid, pkg management is easy, distro overall is very flexible, stability is solid, configuration and tweaking takes minimal effort, community is active, active development, very secure os.

Stick

[UnWorldly]

I have just returned from distro hopping

A little history:

Started by running zipslack on my win98 partition, then mandrake, then a couple years of hiatus from linux, then Redhat9, Then back to mandrake, followed by FC3, kids and their advocacy campaigns convinced me to switch from FC3 by telling me it was crappy and I was missing out on stuff, so I tried debian sarge, then tried slackware, then back to debian again, then I tried arch linux, then I switched back to debian one more time, finally I have switched back to FC4.

Zipslack was great, I used it before liveCD's were popular, it played nicely with windows which was good because I wasn't allowed to break my family's computer, it was a huge pain to do anything with because it took alot of time to tweak and nobody was willing to support zipslack.

Bought mandrake at the wal-mart, mainly because it came with a book, it worked OK, but I found the experience was less enjoyable then with windows so I stopped using it. Alot of the Apps were immature, netscape kinda sucked, wordperfect office was crummy, alot of stuff was just less convenient to work with compared to windows so I left the linux world for a while.

In 2002 I got a job at a computer lab at my school which was running redhat on all its machines. I really didn't know what I was doing alot of the time and it was my job to have a clue and help kids with problems. I learned rh9 mainly by breaking the computers at the lab, then installed it on my laptop. I liked it better than I did mandrake, I was starting to realize some of the nicer linux features, writing scripts, piping commands together, and the apps were more convenient to use than they were last time I had tried them.

After RH9 I went back to mandrake, I didn't quite trust fedora core because it seemed to be more of a test bed then and end user product, that and the computer lab I worked at switched to RHEL and the school did not support fedora, Mandrake was similar to last time I tried, some of the things I enjoyed doing in RH9 were less accesible in mandrake because of efforts to make it "user friendly". I found it hard to customize and was interested in using bleeding edge audio programs.

I switched to FC3, was a great experience the entire time. I installed planet CCRMA, I bought a MIDI keyboard that requited no tweaking whatsoever to get working, just plugged it in and started controlling the softsynths and stuff. I could download demos and watch them, without having dependency problems that the linux demoscene is notorious for. Downloaded lotsa games, started playing nexuiz and realized that there was a competitive advantage for those who tweakedtheir machines for performance. I was being told that FC3 had poor performance and tht I needed to switch dirstros to gain a competitive advantage. During this time I almost got a summer internship with redhat but I didnt have a great interview, I decided to get some experience with other distros before trying again.

I switched to debian sarge, hated it. It took alot more time to configure, the community were a bunch of snobs, it was very hard to customize, I coldn't use software that wasnt in the official repository without having the community refuse to answer my questions. The performance was not significantly better than FC3.

Switched to slackware hoping to find a more modular customizable disrto, something that wasn't so zealously tied to using only the programs in the official repository. Had fun at first, configuring things, installing things. Eventually I realized that all I was doing on slackware was configuring and installing, I didn't have time for anything else. I enjoyed slackware except for the extra time it took to do anything, I had a 40 hour job by this point, no more time to spend on this kind of stuff, I got frustrated and needed a way to be productive quicker.

Back to debian I went. At least it was productive, I tried my best to get by with the default packages. I just couldnt do it, I needed capabilites that weren't offered and the deb community told me to go use ubuntu or gentoo(they say this as an insult). I researched a little and found ways to have a mixed set of repositories to get the programs I wanted. It didn;t last very long, the system broke and all I got was "We told you so" messages from the deb users. I couldnt stand using deb anymore because it seemed to only be an option for people who have the same purposes as the current set of users.

Arch was very appealing at this point, it seemed alot like debian meets slackware, or gentoo without the needles time wasting. Automatic dependency management, plus the extreme configuration. I was happy for a little while, but alot of the system took more work to configure then slackware did. I didnt have time to be productive, I didnt have all the packages I needed and didnt have time to build them all. I got the basic funtionality out of it, even had a chance to run UT2004 for a while. The game did not perform noticably better on arch, the audio programs didn't either.

I decided that arch was not worth all the extra time involved and went back to debian once more. I think I kept coming back to debian because it was convenient yet also respected by most of the linux users I was talking to, they seemed to regard fedora as a newbie distro and they were still convincing me at this point. This time I tried debian unstable. It was like the restrictive package set of debian before plus the extra work from slackware in hacking at things for hours to make them operational. Apt descended into circular dependency hell, this was the last straw, I was going to switch back to the distro that was the least annoying and most convenient, back to fedora.

And here we are today, I hope this is the end of my distro hopping but am still not sure. I am getting quite tired of whiping my hard drive. But I have learned alot so far, I like redhat's conveniances, its compatability with software that isnt always in the official repository, its customizability, its fast development cycle, and those groovy red hats .

The dirtos I tried all seem to have different priorites, here is my interpretation of the focuses of the various distros:
zipslack: convert windows users to slack
mandrake: ease the transition from windows by hiding powerful yet potentialy confusing features
Debian: prove to the world that a zealously free system can be somewhat usable, religously follow free software ideals even at the cost of functionality
Slackware: be the generic linux, resemble unix as much as possible, offer extreme customizability at the cost of saving time
Arch: create a fun environment for tinkering enthusiasts, win benchmarks
Red Hat: PRODUCTIVITY!

I think red had has the right idea, save my time, alow me to track the fast moving linux developments without spending all my time tweaking, let me use the programs that I want instead of restricting me to an official repo. Red hat has annoyed me the least out of all the distros that I have tried so far. Debian has annoyed me the most mainly because of the snobbish community who refuses to be helpful. I think the aggesive advocacy of alot of linux users misleads alot of people, convinces them to switch too much. I think I fell for the "grass is greener" idea which made me keep trying other distros. I find fedora to be the most usable distro, mandrake hides the complexity too much, debian follows gnu ideals too fervently which makes their system less useful for people with specific purposes, slackware has a problem offering time-saving features because they beleive the user will be happier with a hand configured system, arch tries too hard to make the system fun for tinkering around with which hurts its productivity. Just my humble opinions. I have problems with redhat too, but I think redhat and my priorities are more in line with each other then the other distro's I have tried.

[Artik]

First distribution was:

About five years ago installed Debian Potato 2.2. It was period when I wanted to try something new. Had no idea about linux. Installed it with very basic set from Floppyes... Learned programming and other stuff a lot. But never get to use it for daily purpose... Then I got a long brake.

In january 2005 installed FC3. I was really surprised how Linux works well on desktop. Spend quite a lot time with it about 3-4 month. Then I tired of low performance on old PC. Multimedia problems and lots of bugs.

Moved to Debain Sarge. It worked very well. I missed some FC stuff but it worked very well, stable and solid. Worked with it for a long period untill FC4 was released.

After FC4 was released I installed it. After one day of usage and crash of X server I decided to move back to Debian Sarge. It was too bleeding edge and buggy for me.

Now I'm with Debian 3.1 Sarge. It works really good. I want to try Mandriva and Suse. But I don't really want to jump between different distros. I got my computer work for me very well and I want it for work not experiments.

Maybe when I'll buy a new computer I'll try them.

FC was very good distro and I would defenatly continue to use it, if it was not too bleeding edge and buggy!

[npaladin2000]

I've been around several distros, including Xandros (not bad), Gentoo (great learning tool), Mandrake, Vidalinux (sucked), Linspire (iffy), Slack, and Arch. And, of course, the big 3: Red Hat/Fedora, Debian/Ubuntu, and SUSE Pro/Novell OES.

I try to stay clear of Slack and Arch. OK enough distros, but they remind me of self-torture for bragging rights (Hey, *I* manage to not use ANYTHING to administer my system but vim). They also contain the two least compatible and most exclusive (1 distro only) package management systems out there, which is a real bad thing. If one wants to prove his toughness, Gentoo is a better way anyway, and you learn a WHOLE lot more. It's too much to go through for a regular workstations or server build though, unless you're making an image for a WHOLE BUNCH of identical machines, but Gentoo is an EXCELLENT learning tool with a REAL tough-guy install. It also has an EXCELLENT step-by-step guide that explains what to do AND what it actually does, which makes it great for learning.

However, the Vidalinux variant of Gentoo kinda stinks a bit....there's no real good frontend for emerge/portage, probably because Gentoo is the only other distro that uses it (kinda like with pacman or slapt-get). Also, compilation just to install a program gets real old real fast (try installing OpenOffice...takes a while).

Xandros and Linspire make decent desktop/workstation distros. Their purchase-only disto method means a minimal community, but you get actual paid support. Xandros also has a nice management server that lets you remotely manage Xandros workstations, which works out nice.

I suppose the Big 3 could be expanded to include Mandrake/Mandriva, but they never impressed me. haven't used them in a long time (pre-URPMI), but back when I did I didn't like the (lack of) stability, and when their auto-update installed a new kernel and hosed my system it was kinda the last straw. I suppose I should go check it out again; they DO have a real nice installer that lets you set up scripts to duplicate the install on a bunch of machines, and do so easily.

Ok, on to the big 3. They are the big 3, and they are my 3 favorites, each for different reasons. Fedora and RHEL have got the highest compatibility out there, and if someone makes a package, they make it for Fedora/Red hat. In general the distros are slick and stable, with nice current software. Fedora makes a nice workstation. Only problem I see is a lack of decent remote admin tools. And package management could be a little better. Yum is nice, and even has features that apt doesn't, but it's still a bit short in the GUI frontend department. APT is available for Fedora, but it's not as fast or slick on RPM as it is for it's native debs on Debian.

Debian and Ubuntu (Different projects but quite closely related) have MUCH better package management....APT is the class of the world, especially when used with deb packages with their built in pre-configuration applets. Ubuntu is a nice workstation, Debian makes a better server. However, other than webmin or SSH, both are also a bit insufficient when it comes to remote admin.

If one wants the class of the world when it comes to remote management, one looks to SUSE and Novell OES. YAST is a great central control console and works equally well over SSH or VNC. Besides that, Novell's iManager is also fantastic for managing the Novell infrastructure and services of Open Enterprise Server. Suse makes a decent enough workstation, though package availability is nowhere NEAR that of Debian or Fedora, and poor SUSE doesn't have ANY package frontend like apt or yum....they still operate with straight RPM, which means it's the only top distro still susceptible to dependency hell.

[Vinneh]

Originally Posted by npaladin2000

poor SUSE doesn't have ANY package frontend like apt or yum....they still operate with straight RPM, which means it's the only top distro still susceptible to dependency hell.

*cough* YAST *cough*

[tomcat]

My impressions with different distros (only a selection in no particular order):

Fedora: Great distro for the advanced user. Good number of packages, graphical configuartion tools for many things, but (unlike some other distros), CLI works even well or even better. Very versatile (Home PC, Laptop, Server, Development-station, Router,...) very stable, fast bugfixing, teaches you a lot about Linux.

Gentoo: Will teach you once how to compile things the Gentoo way. That means the Gentoo knowledge is not always usable with other distros. Sometimes too up to date. Stable enough for server purposes but horrible to maintain (compiling packages takes too long). Most users use it for bragging around imho.

Vidalinux: Easy Gentoo-install for those who want to say "I am using Gentoo" but are scared of an installation from scratch. Considerably slower than Gentoo. Last release was way too buggy.

SUSE: Great beginners distro. Stable and comfortable for Windows converts. Yast works quite well. SUSE does things more often its way rather than the Linux way. Switch from SUSE to another distro and you will learn almost from scratch again. Very slow installer, too much integration of KDE into the base system.

Slackware: The ultimate experience if you really want to learn Linux, but time cosuming. If no one knows a solution to a problem, ask Slackware users. They know a hell of a lot about pure Linux. Not for beginners, semi-advanced Linux users or those that want bleeding edge. Slackware is built for stability and stability is what you get.

Debian: Incredible amount of deb-packages available, very good Server distro (Debian stable IS stable!). Not for beginners as the installtion and configuration is tricky. Downpoint: Mixing repositories will break your system at once, the transition from Xfree to Xorg makes Debian problematic to use atm.

Mandriva: The best distro for beginners. Can be used in many different ways without tweaking too many things. Basic installation is a bit bloated, expert users can trim down the distro easily. Generally a fast and quite stable distro that just works.

Ubuntu: After a hot start, Ubuntu slipped a bit. The installer is usable but too confusing for computer illiterates. Very stripped down "Debian unstable". 4.10 was rock stable and worked well, 5.04 is a too buggy release. Many configuration tools for the newbie are missing. "Sudo" approach instead of root is a security risk imho (although root account can be added (e.g. expert install)).

Yoper: Very fast KDE-centric distro that is useful for developers but not average computer users (Webbrowsing, emails, digital photos, openoffice). Development is rather slow due to small developer team. Uses its own rpms (not based on RedHat like many other distros). Good multimedia support out of the box, very fast install.

Arch: Not many packages, not easy to configure. Definitely something for experienced users. Too many bugs that need to be sorted out. Not really faster than Slackware, Yoper or Gentoo (or any other optimized distro). "Much ado about nothing" IMHO.

[morecoffee]

Distros I have used off hand include Redhat 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, Fedora 1,2,3,4, Mandrake 5.3, etc, Slackware 10.1, Debian, Evil Entity, DamnSmallLinux all, Knoppix all, Ubuntu and Kubuntu.

I’m not go into great detail about what was great and sucked, but I will give an overview of what I have learned along the way installing and configuring some of these distros. I have read a lot and some people feel that their distro is superior (mostly Slackware and Debian) but to tell you the truth I found no real superiority using either of those. After personally spending hours getting a piece of hardware/configuring software to work(while it can be a great learning experience). I’m not going to fault someone who uses a distro that works out of the box.

The live bootables are great, and can be a valuable addition to a Technicians tool belt.

With the Variety it is a shame that I do not have time to install and try them all, but in the end I have realized that they are all Linux underneath(don’t tell the distro basher guy), and the beauty of Linux is our choice to use whatever distro we want, and to not be bound to terms and conditions. The Linux community has been great, there is more help and information out there than you could ask for. For me I would feel comfortable running any of several distros, but Fedora has been solid all the way. When I hear people talk about bleeding edge and buggy, while I’m not disputing it, I have never seen it. Fedora is what I use, I do not dual boot except to try other Linux distros. For all of my computer needs Fedora has worked beautifully. People can call it a “Windows like distro”, um ok then don’t use it. Fedora developers keep up the good work.!

Coffee