Ubuntu, Arche, or Fedora

File: speccy.png (41KB, 662x530px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 662x530px

And if anyones curious - the CPU is usually overclocked, it just happens that I set it to base clock to test some stuff out with some RAM I recently bought. I'm usually able to pull ~5.0GHz with pretty stable temps (water cooled of course)

unless you are a loonix fanboy and like messing with it get away from arch. The rest is just personal choice.

>>47339709
Well, that doesn't help much. Are there seriously no empirical benefits between fedora and ubuntu or even arche?

>>47340059
whats arche?

>>47340059
Fedora's packages are a whole lot newer than Ubuntu's, and Fedora is sponsored by a multi-billion dollar company and Ubuntu only a multi-million dollar company.

>>47340092
Typo, dense clod. Arch.

>>47340154
typo? you did the same shit in your first post. you are just a subhuman piece of shit. thread filtered.

>>47339637
What does the python installation have to do with your choice of distro? You can just install Python 3.4 if it isn't included.

>>47340092
Arche is one of the four main playable characters of the epic Super Famicom jRPG Tales of Phantasia. She's a young half-elf sorceress.

>>47340152
That's actually good to know, that pretty much means I'll steer clear or Ubuntu.

>>47339637
Mentioning pros only, not cons.

>Ubuntu
up to date packages
very noob-friendly
biggest community

>Fedora
bleeding edge packages (more up to date than Ubuntu).

>Arch
rolling release.
bleeding edge packages (similar to Fedora).
great info (wiki).
most vanilla Linux experience of the 3 distros.

Two fundamental differences between the 3 distros is their release cycle and their package manager (Ubuntu: apt; Fedora: yum; Arch: pacman).

>>47340330
>Ubuntu
>up to date
Are you high, or do you not know what up to date means? By the way Fedora's wiki is more professional and otherwise better than Arch's, and Fedora sort of invented the whole not patching from upstream thing. Not to mention nobody uses Yum since DNF comes out of the box.

>>47340330
>bleeding edge packages (more up to date than Ubuntu).
Bullshit.
Ubuntu and Fedora have basically the same stable release update policy except that Fedora follows latest stable linux kernel and Ubuntu backports
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates

>>47340330
Looks like I might be going with Arch then - Thanks all.

>>47340396
Fedora Wiki is more about tracking changes in the Fedora project, not general documentation like arch wiki. If there's anything comparable to the arch wiki it would be docs.fedoraproject.org, which is still far more limited in scope.
Fedora's project leader actually recommends arch wiki.

Fedora does carry downstream patches. Obv ones would transparency in Gnome3 terminals, renaming grub-mkconfig to grub2-mkconfig, kernel patches for various laptops so backlight works.

yum is still default in Fedora 21 and dnf's bugtracker is busy.

>>47340861
Arch has the shittiest security record of those three and has no real security team. So they miss high priority ones for like 2 months:
http://lwn.net/Articles/631118/

>>47340993
>>47340993
Also no MAC.
Ubuntu has AppArmor, Fedora SELinux and Arch nothing. (adding unsupported third-party AUR shit to harden your system is no strategy)

>>47340993
Huh, that's actually a potential deal breaker on that front. But honestly, unless I'm doing something involving servers or pulling a bunch of shit from the web, it really isn't that big a deal, no?

>>47341057
>>47340993
>>47340993
Huh, that's actually a potential deal breaker on that front. But honestly, unless I'm doing something involving servers or pulling a bunch of shit from the web, it really isn't that big a deal, no?

>>47341125
Sure, if you aren't connected to the internet.
But you can prolly own a arch systems just by their shitty non-existent default security settings.
In theory all desktop linux is utterly insecure due to X11, which allows any program full access to the
display and inputs. It just has like <1% market share, so it's secure by obscurity.
Otherwise the attack vector would be exactly the same as on windows: drive-by attacks through the browser, which has more or less the same security holes than on Windows, except they are more severe due to X11.

>>47341537
X11 has root access?

>>47341125
Besides security it shows arch total lack in anything but packaging upstream.

Their kernel is the same, you get latest vanilla stable and nothing else. Whereas Fedora actually talks with upstream and you get latest stable + cherrypicks from mainline - bypassing the stable linux maintainer who's still busy reviewing other patches.

>>47341560
Usually yes, but that's another problem.

A rootless X11 server still is in control of what gets displayed and inputted.
So some client can just tell the X11 server to also send him all keyboard inputs (built-in keylogger) or overdraw that browser window (build-in phishing).

Here's your keylogger:
$ xinput list
$ xinput test id

Phishing is a littler harder:
https://github.com/magcius/keylog

Hopefully wayland/mir will fix that and more:
http://mupuf.org/blog/2014/02/19/wayland-compositors-why-and-how-to-handle/

>>47341717
I've always wondered why the developers of windowing systems never changed that. Should be an easy fix. Guess they have more problems to deal with. Especially with all the bugs in XORG.

>>47341057
Couldn't you just add apparmor or SELinux modules to the Arch kernel if you really cared that much?

>>47341794
Yes you can do that

>>47341773
Some Red Hat/Fedora dev actually did:
http://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/14268.html

>>47341794
Sure, let's harden your system by using an unsupported kernel.
Also Arch has no SELinux policies and their AppArmorr ones aren't that well maintained either.

>>47341833
It really comes down to package management, that's what makes a distro different. If you like a lot of cutting edge packages, arch is the way to go. Lot of stable packages? Debian. Fedora? I heard it used to be horrendous, but I also hear that it's pretty good now

>Electrical Engineering Ever
ew thats so hard

>>47341841
You can just load the module for your version of Linux.

>>47341841
I was also referring to the keylogging aspect. It shouldn't be too difficult to implement access controls within XORG, so that only allowed applications would read input, ect.

>>47341833
You cannot.
LSM aren't loadable kernel modules but extensions. You have to build your own kernel.

>>47339637
Xubuntu is probably my favorite, other than that I've also been using Linux Mint Cinnamon for a while which I think is okay as well.
I've been using Arch, but honestly in my opinion it's a little unnecessary for rational use. It's fun, sure, but convenient? Not so much.
It's been a while since I used Fedora, but personally I didn't see any reason to use that over Ubuntu. Ubuntu has more complete spin-offs, and more people use it, so you get things like easy to use and up to date repositories for most things as well as readily available help on forums and such. I do realize a lot of documentation and community suggestions may work just as well across distributions, but in my opinion Ubuntu just provides a smoother experience without any real compromises.
Do note that when saying Ubuntu I'm referring to both Mint and Xubuntu, Mint being slightly more different while Xubuntu is practically the same. To my knowledge Kubuntu, Lubuntu or plain Ubuntu are also solid choices. I simply prefer XFCE to the other environments.
If you've got all the time in the world and don't care too much about things working quickly and trouble free of course there's nothing in the way of installing Ubuntu minimal and adding whatever you need on top of that if you feel the spin-offs add a little too much of everything.

>>47340059
brief summary:
arch breaks more easily, lets and sometimes forces you to do shit on your own.
ubuntu is more stable but also less up to date.
fedora is more up to date and in my experience just as stable.
so between fedora and ubuntu i'd say it's just preference, of course fedora has less community as well as commercial support.

File: arch.png (407KB, 492x611px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 492x611px

>>47340179

>>47342197
Are there people who think that shade of brown looks good on anyone?

>>47342179
>fedora
>community project sponsored by RedHat
>less community as well as commercial support
What's with /g/ and doing drugs?

>>47342223
>Are there people who think that shade of brown looks good on anyone?
hopefully not
>What's with /g/ and doing drugs?
isn't it pretty obvious that an OS with a much, much larger user base will have a larger community and that corporations will prioritize support to make more money or reach out to more peope?

>>47340233
Stop!
Your hitting my nostalgia at its core!

>>47342223

If they're actually naturally that color yes

>>47342179
I would not recommend Ubuntu except real Ubuntu with Unity.
Those GTK+ patches for Unity aren't that nice (GTK+ upstream refused them to due quality and they weren't even ifdef'd for different WMs in the past) for others nor is the Mir future. (needs Xorg/Mesa patches nor will Wayland be much tested)

Linux Mint is an obvious no-contender with having security updates for core components disabled by default.
Nor do their DEs (Cinnamon/Mate) have a bright future with Gnome/GTK+ moving fast towards Wayland while Unity moves to QT5/QML and Mir.

>>47342179
who cares about a 1 or 2 minor version difference

>>47342406
>Canonical
>good support
>remember
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/543617/comments/20

>>47342696
>missing the point
i was talking about support from the community and application support from corporations
never had to deal with canonical support myself

>>47342696
>tldr
>Red Hat employer is sick of having to fix Canonical's bugs that are not even Fedora
>recommends to wait for Suse because those have real engineers, too

>>47340059

Ubuntu without Unity is great.

Ubuntu + gnome.

Fedora isnt bad and the worst thing about it is the unfortunate name choice.

>>47342743
Canonical is in open conflict with lots of upstream projects (Gnome, KDE, Wayland). So you won't get much support from those.

Their community is mostly newbies which aren't that helpful. Most Ubuntu contributors are also Debian contributors and like 75% of all packages in Ubuntu are unaltered from Debian. So you should rather thank Debian.

>>47342819
>Ubuntu + gnome.
You do realize no Gnome dev recommends that combination because of Canonical's horrible GTK+ patches for Unity.

>>47342821
I don't need to thank anybody, I just want an OS that works well, which I have.

>>47342988
>linuxfags
>want something for free
>can't even say thanks

OP Here, at this point, I've at least ruled out Ubuntu - the effective incompatibility with GTK+ is a bit of a turnoff as I'm not a fan of the unity system - hell, I had a bitch of a time getting gnome3 to work(still partially) on my CAELinux laptop.

>>47343019
Rule out Arch too, because I said so if you really need a reason. Install Fedora, or Korora if you don't want to work for a bit getting nonfree software.

>>47343019
Gnome is in charge of GTK+3 now and doesn't care about any compatibility.
"We never guaranteed any stable API, your fault for assuming that"
Canonical has the resources to patch and make Unity7 work for them.
Xfce/Cinnamon/Mate not so much. So Mint chose the easy way out and froze on Ubuntu 14.04 base, while Xfce clings on GTK+2.

>>47343113
But that's just coverup job to make unity a bit less shitty (for some people, anyways) and from what I can tell looking at the process for doing that, it is just as big a pain for some systems are forcing GTK+ on the system.

>install Fedora
>everything's going fine
>try to use livestreamer for muh Crunchyroll
>[cli] [error] Could not open stream: Need pyCrypto installed to decrypt this stream
>already have python-crypto installed

The fuck is this shit?

>>47343223
probably incompatible versions or some shit

>>47343196
Unity8 will be QT5/QTQuick, so KDE can have fun with Canonical instead.

>>47343223
Maybe Red Hat patched some cryptos out.
crypto for bitcoin doesn't work either because Red Hat legal says it's patent encumbered.

Anyway just pip install the latest version and bypass the package manager.

>>47343241
>>47343341
Well trying to install from pip made it spit out some sort of error involving compilation.

Out of curiosity, how hard is it to set up youtube-dl to stream crunchyroll to mpv?

>>47343654
ask in the mpv thread

File: Screenshot from 2015-04-03 22:58:06.png (60KB, 692x414px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 692x414px

>>47343654
Crunchyroll hates people who won't use Flash.

>>47343774
>http://www.crunchyroll.com/jojos-bizarre-adventure/episode-36-hol-horse-and-mondatta-part-1-667943
>works for me
old ytdl, mpv or ffmpeg?

>>47339637
Mint is superior to Ubuntu in every way. If you want the OS with greatest usability and minimal headache of the three, (I think you do, because you're actually trying to accomplish shit for your education) then go with Mint. Cinnamon is way more responsive than Unity and Mint has much less bloat.

>>47343774
werks on my machine
no subtitles though, but it works fine with livestreamer

>>47343890
An explanation of how this is the case? From what I'm seeing here, Fedora or Arch is my best option - usability is good but functionality and versatility (and updates) are more what I'm looking for. If I wanted another all in one package, I'd just stick to what I have on my laptop (as outdated is it is) because I already know the system.

Well, since I've got some time on my hands over the next 2 weeks, I decided what I'll do is first give Arch Linux a try and see if there's any decent ways to bump security and determine if the system will drive me nuts or not. If I don't like it, I'll jump to Fedora which I've kind of used and will at least be content enough with to work with.

Thanks all, believe it or not, some of this actually helped.