[Cialug] Well "put together" Linux distros?

[Todd E Thomas]

I like Fedora <http://fedoraproject.org/>. The (OS) design has been 
solidified - but - it does include packages that are bleeding edge; 
packages are updated fairly soon after their release.


1) The FS heirachy isn't likely to change.


2) There are soft links to various programs but are of little 
importance: eg:
$ ls -l /bin/vi -> /usr/bin/vim

I would argue that there are limited reasons for ever using vi, and 99% 
of the time you'd want to use vim anyway.

There are the more obvious ones like:
$ ls -l /etc/rc3.d/
total 0
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 15 Jul 19  2011 K01smolt -> ../init.d/smolt
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 16 Jul 19  2011 K10psacct -> ../init.d/psacct
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 19 Aug 21  2011 K10saslauthd -> ../init.d/saslauthd
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 15 Jul 20  2011 K10zvbid -> ../init.d/zvbid
...

I can't imagine why these should be avoided. You can have multiple soft 
links back to a single program. This is a life-simplification measure.


3) It uses OpenSSL and not GnuTLS. If we can all agree that ldap is 
important, it has a long(er) history with OpenSSL that with GnuTLS 
<http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200802/msg00072.html> and 
errors occasionally due to a deep design problem with GnuTLS:
It uses string functions to parse binary data, which it still does to 
this day. Fixing this would be a total rewrite for GnuTLS and isn't 
likely to happen. For the sake of full disclosure, Howard Chu is the 
Chief Architect of the OpenLDAP Core Team.

These problems simply don't happen when libldap is compiled against 
OpenSSL. Even if LDAP auth isn't an issue now, it may be some day.

As you may or may not understand all of the implications of this subtle, 
but unavoidable, problem. I can assure you that I have a fair amount of 
time attempting to authenticate an Linux Mint client (descendant of 
Ubuntu > Debian) against a CentOS ldap server; it will not work without 
auth errors (sometimes), whereas OpenSSL has yet to error.


4) I'm not a big fan of the Red Hat's samba implementation but with a 
hair more work it performs as it should.


5) Gnome 3
This is a major sticking point more most people. I understand why but - 
if you are simply trying to get your work done - it should be a 
non-issue. It's Gnome 3or Unity and who really cares what happens on 
top? Comp-Sci has everything to do with the subsystem and that's what's 
ultimately important.


After that, it should be said that there are tons /more/ packages for 
Ubuntu than there are for Fedora. But, in 3 years it has not been an 
issue for me. Again, I don't play much and am only using it for "work" 
so it keeps me happy.

That being said, if you are looking for something that doesn't change 
much, blow the money on a Mac Laptop. Linux /is/ the center of a code 
tsunami.


The real question is: What are you trying to accomplish?
     *Web design?
     *Bash, Perl, Python programming?
     *Ripping Blu-Rays for a multimedia entertainment center?


Your purpose will be the primary driver for tool selection - and should 
be - with every project.

I hope this helps,

Todd E Thomas
C: 515.778.6913
"A man may fulfill the object of his existence by asking a question he cannot answer, and attempting a task he cannot achieve."
Oliver Wendell Holmes



  


On 05/12/2012 01:29 PM, Nicolai wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm looking for a clean, light, and well "put together" Linux distro that
> doesn't change its startup scripts, paths, and so on.  Something stable
> in that regard.  Very few symlinks and no symlink chains.
>
> I've played with Debian but am definitely open to others.
>
> Ubuntu should be at the opposite end of the spectrum.  What do you
> recommend and why?
>
> Nicolai
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug