Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Linux Distributions

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 16:54

Are there any good non-Slackware distributions left?

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 16:58

I-I am sorry...
You can try OpenBSD but it's not a Linux distribution.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 17:34

Funtoo might be nice.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 18:39

If systemd is a dealbreaker, then no. I actually like Ubuntu, freedom-problems notwithstanding.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 18:49

Windows 7

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 19:12

>>4
It is.

Do you even use Unity?

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 19:15

https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/openrc
It's possible to get OpenRC working in Debian.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 19:20

this one is based on slack http://www.absolutelinux.org/

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 21:02

I like AOSP.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-12 21:04

No.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-13 13:27

>>6
Yeah, I don't mind it. It was really annoying at first, but once you're used to it it has a lot of convenience features that KDE doesn't have. There are some irritating pieces, like the fact that you basically can't get rid of the bar at the top of the screen, but for the most part it's ok. I'm running it on a powerful machine, so performance isn't awful.

I'm not a typical Linux user, though; I don't really care much about configuring my machine. I use Linux instead of Windows because it's easier to use and because when you get down to it, it runs a lot faster - you can arge about whether Windows is faster or slower in a "fair test," but in the real world there are a billion things that slow Windows down, and boot takes forever. The freedom thing is a definite plus as well.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-13 15:07

Gentoo is my favourite distro, although I've never tried funtoo. I probably will on future machines. I don't know what anyone has against it, unless you really don't want to wait a few minutes for things to compile.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-13 18:19

>>12
When you're working with low-powered devices, compiling a kernel doesn't take just ``a few minutes''. I use it on my desktop PC, but there's no way I'm using it on the Celerons I've got at work.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-13 18:55

>>13
Why do you use Celerons at work?

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-13 19:59

>>14
Why buy anything more expensive, when all I need to do is making some epic TOUCH-ENABLED APPS with no complex logic or graphics?

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-13 20:02

OpenSuse

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-13 20:18

>>16
Uses systemd as well.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-13 21:22

Ubuntu LTS will NOT use systemd, Ubuntu 14.10 does (and I'm not even sure).

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-14 0:34

SliTaz ?

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-14 0:52

Exherbo!

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 2:14

>>13
When you have a brain, you do your compilations on a server!

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 5:13

>>7
it is a replacement for sysv-rc, not for sysv-init.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 5:25

Systemd is well designed. It was conceived from the top, not just to fix bugs, but to be a correct implementation for the base system services.

Systemd makes the boot process much simpler, entirely removing the need to specify dependencies in many cases thanks to D-Bus activation, socket activation, file/inotify activation and udev integration.
Systemd can handle the boot process from head to toe, without needing to use any of the existing shell scripts.
Systemd is straightforward. The command-line interface is probably the best existing for service management. The unit file format (like .desktop or “ini” files) is completely declarative, can be parsed using standard tools, and is a breeze to maintain.
Systemd unit files, unlike SysV scripts, can usually be shipped by upstream, or at least shared with other distributions (already more than 1000 existing unit files in Fedora) without any changes, the Debian specifics being handled by systemd itself.
Systemd is incredibly fast (1 second to boot). It was not designed with speed in mind, but doing things correctly avoids all the delays currently incurred by the boot process.
The transition plan is easy, since existing init scripts are treated as first-class services: scripts can depend (using LSB headers) on units, units can depend on scripts. More than 99% of init scripts can be used without a modification.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 12:28

>>23
without ... shell scripts.
file format is completely declarative
so boot process became inflexible?

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 17:01

>>23
I don't believe your NSA advertising.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 19:44

thanks to D-Bus
Shalom!

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 20:31

>>23
In the dens of wretched villany in which I am most comfortable, I actually never come across anyone who supports systemd. I'm curious: as >>24 has pointed out, shell scripts are used for extensibility. How is this handled in systemd?

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 20:34

>>2
Why use OpenBSD when FreeBSD exists?

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-19 22:18

With sinit I can use any language for init scripts not sure about the rest init systems tho.

Name: Anonymous 2014-10-20 20:04

Choose NikS-OS (Nikita Sadkov OS) which uses symtad.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List