Let's talk for real what's the best Linux plus GNU

>>56393299
Gentoo belongs at the end. I use Debian, it "just werks", but you need to fiddle with Gentoo. It gives you total control over the system

Arch and Gentoo requires more work to set up but you'll end up with a very minimal and personal distro. Most others are pre-configured and while you can change everything that's not how those distros are meant to be used. If you want to use another init system for example, it's probably better to use Arch instead of spending hours getting Ubuntu to work without systemd. You might also be interested in choosing a distro based on who is maintaining it (e.g. Arch is supported by its community, Ubuntu has a multi-million dollar company behind it). Personally I don't think there's any distro that is the best. It all depends on what you want from a distro.

>>56393299
I remember that. In the end was: 'whatever it works'.

>>56393342
>>56393433
I Think the reason for saying gentoo and arch are in the middle is because more often they are used for intermediate Linux users that want to learn how to take control of the system. But after you learn the ins and outs of the system you progress to want a simplified system that works otb in order to be more productive.

>>56393299
Haha I guess I already skipped to the end. Goddamn I just can't take unity

File: 1466323873619.jpg (151KB, 1204x2048px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1204x2048px

>tfw compiling kernel in 30secs

okay, but, like, what about apricity

>>56393299
I use Ubuntu server in a VM at home and we use CentOS for everything at work. Not sure CentOS would work as a desktop though and I don't really like any Linux desktop environment anyway.

>>56393622
I don't understand this principle that because it takes longer to setup, you won't be as productive.
Sure, you may take an evening to setup everything, but once it's done, there's no difference: you can do other things while your updates are compiling.
Or is it implying that being productive requires you to constantly install new software?

I began from Fedora 6, now I use CentOS 6.8. Some packages from Fedora 6 I use in CentOS (file-roller, lang-packs, aspell). I just take rpms from Ferora DVD distro and install, they are suitable. CentOS is a system that you have to build like a mosaic. I would reccomend it for beginners, then for more experienced users I would recommend to install OpenSUSE, it is modern and comfortable system.

>>56395365
I'm not saying you can't be as productive, I'm just saying the time put into those types of systems do not help in productivity. You can set up a great system on gentoo or arch but there will always be parts of those systems holding you back.

If for example you are setting up a new workstation and you want it up and running as quickly as possible, I can install Fedora, Ubuntu, etc within a few minutes and update all of its software within 10 minutes. 10 minutes to set up a new workstation versus having to piece together a system yourself and then, especially on gentoo, wait for compiling. You are wasting valuable time on things others have already done for you on other distros. I don't hate gentoo, slackware, or arch, but they aren't for work.

only used xubuntu ever. it just werks.

My gnu/linux life cycle was fedora > ubuntu > fedora > ubuntu > debian

Every GNU Linux distro is created for comps of its time. If you have comp of 2009 PD, then its stupid to install a distro of 2015 year in it. Doesnt matter what your comp can display, matter how it can do it.

>>56396408
The compile time is really a non-issue. I can update my system over night once every month and it will be fine, not holding me back. The initial install isn't too relevant for being productive either, because it's a one time thing, and not even that time consuming when you know what you're doing.

The real difference comes into play when you become picky with what you want and not. Ubuntu will not be able to satisfy, having something like USE flags and eselect for package versions is great for development.

Ubuntu is nice if you're ok with "meh", Gentoo is absolutely better if you're not ok with walking against walls every now and then.

File: chart.jpg (215KB, 1327x885px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1327x885px

>not posting the correct version

Windows is superior compared to every and any lonix shitro

Antergos.

File: fixed.jpg (187KB, 1327x879px)

187KB, 1327x879px

>>56393299

File: Untitled.png (810KB, 1327x879px) Image search: [Google]

810KB, 1327x879px

>>56397560
Almost there.

Manjaro is da breast

In order:
>Ubuntu
>Crunchbang
>Lubuntu
>Kali
>Ubuntu
>Centos

It depends on your knowing of the OS. in my job i use Centos, Debian, Ubuntu. I prefer debian like my personal choice

I am a linux noob
What linux distro should i install?

>>56393852
pls tell me "she" doesn´t have a dick

>>56393299
My first foray into the Linux world was Debian. Am I a wizard?

>>56393299
Im at the fourth stage. I went in that order as well.
Fedora trully is a godsend.
>>56398228
If thats anzu then no.

File: oldfag.jpg (69KB, 640x482px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x482px

>mfw I settled with Debian before any of the non-Debian distros from OP's pic even existed
>tried RedHat and Slackware before that

>>56396408
I get more done when I play, anyway, bro.

>>56393342
Gnetoo is for those who like to waste time and in the end, if they still use Gentoo, they subsist on low wages.

>>56398288
You missed the fucking point, stupid. The graphic highlights that "in the end, whatever works".