Favorite Linux OS

Version 4.12

3.16

>>61586171
Gentoo

>>61586216
That's a GNU/Linux distro. We're talking about Linux distros here.

>>61586221
A Linux distribution (often abbreviated as distro) is an operating system made from a software collection, which is based upon the Linux kernel and, often, a package management system.

>>61586171
4.9
i havent updated yet

4.11 seems to be doing the trick

4.4 masterrace

Anything below 4.12-generic or 4.9.34-gentoo needs to be gassed

Linux-libre 4.12

>>61586171
Lubuntu. Easy to put tint2 on an openbox session on it and uses not too much ram.

File: smug-pepe2.jpg (43KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x400px

>>61586171
linux sarah

>>61586171
2.6
I'm a lazy updater

10 LTSB

2.6.28 - Erotic Pickled Herring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names

>>61586251
But OP hasn't given any intimation as to whether or not he's talking about distributions of kernel Linux or distributions of GNU/Linux, commonly referred to simply as a Linux Distro.

With what we're given, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that he's talking about the former and not the latter. In fact, reading this thread, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that this is, in fact, a thread for discussing distributions of kernel Linux and which one is your favorite.

File: 1495051225306.jpg (6KB, 186x208px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 186x208px

All memes aside, why do so many distros exist while they do the exact same shit?

>>61586836
Differing philosophies, implementations, release cadences . . .

It's not like all distros are precisely the same. Mostly, it boils down to what problems the distro is trying to solved. Embedded systems, desktops, servers, optimization, education, security--there's an audience for everything, and because it's all free software, you have the freedom to modify GNU/Linux to fit your needs.

>>61586836
Ignore the downstream distros. They're just stupid.
The only relevant distros are:
- RedHat (muh corporate support)
- Debian (muh ancient packages)
- Arch (muh bleeding edge)
- Gentoo (muh autism).

>>61586171
Ubuntu Gnome

>>61587124
what about ubuntu as a normie desktop os?

>>61587124
I just want to understand one thing. Going to use Debian as an example. As far as I know, all distributions based on it (Ubuntu, Xubuntu etc.) function more or less exactly the same. Major differences exist only in desktop environments and pre-installed packages. But why does this even exist? Why are all of them advertised as different operating systems? When I install a minimal Debian with Xfce4 environment I don't call it Xubuntu - it's still Debian with Xfce4 DE and no pre-installed bloat. I always thought that GNU\Linux was "do everything yourself" attitude OS - but the more I come to contact with it, the less true it seems.

>>61586171
Manjaro
Cause it's literally prericed Arch that doesn't broke

>>61587236
Downstream Debian. Do not use.

>>61587254
>I always thought that GNU\Linux was "do everything yourself" attitude OS
Yes, but not everybody is trying to target that crowd. I really think that probably 95% of distros have no justification to exist, though.

File: kevin.jpg (102KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x800px

>>61586171

your mom

Fedora

>>61586836
was it autism?

>>61587124
>Ignore the downstream distros.
you're an idiot

also, Fedora is upstream

>>61587254
>But why does this even exist?
There are a lot of practical advantages for both the end user and distributors for managing your own distro. In the same way that Fedora has workstations created for certain specialists, such as medicine, engineering, content creation, Ubuntu has flavors that cater to certain preferences. Using the "flavors" method, it's much easier for end users--especially those that aren't necessarily very invested in the difference between distributions--choose an implementation that's good for their use case; in addition to that, preconfigured distros are easier to deploy in enterprise environments.

>Why are all of them advertised as different operating systems
I think you know the answer to that one.

> I always thought that GNU\Linux was "do everything yourself" attitude OS
No, that's true. As with all UNIX-like OS's, GNU/Linux is very hackible and incredibly extensible. The diversity of consumer-friendly distributions is a celebration of that. There's a distro for every niche.

To be honest, it feels very condescending and elitist of you to expect every user to modify and hack their own distribution. No offense, but did it ever occur to you that not everyone wants to waste their time toying with their computer? Some people just want to get their job done, and distributions like Ubuntu are a means to an end. Not everyone uses GNU/Linux to be "secure" or contrarian. It's a tool to get work done, not validate themselves in front of a bunch of random people on the internet. UNIX is about software not imposing itself onto the end user. If a user doesn't even know a software exists, then they're doing a good job.

>>61587380
>Fedora is upstream
What? It's literally RHEL Beta.

>>61587398
That is literally the definition of upstream, you fucking mongoloid.

>>61587398
no, RHEL is Fedora LTS

>>61586822
>GNU cannot be part of a Linux distro
So this is what autism looks like.

>>61587124
what about
- Linux from Scratch (muh pull muh teeth)

Fedora

>>61587515
LFS isn't actually a GNU/Linux distribution.

Arch, but I'm interested in switching to NixOS

>>61586836
>they do the exact same shit?
Acutally not or Qubes OS, Alpine, Tomato and obongo do the same thing? There you go.

>>61586419
Sarah is minty fresh

>>61587383
Okay that makes sense.

>>61586171
XP or 7

>>61586171
If I plan to do exotic shit like host a phone network, some sort of KDE preinstalled ubuntu, if I plan to use my desktop like a normal person, arch.
Fedora is a fucking meme and debian is a pain with all the outdated packages.