Which Linux distribution do you use most frequently?

We're collecting this data to run in an upcoming issue of Linux Journal. We encourage you to leave comments here letting us know why you use the Linux distribution you do. Let your voice be heard! Heads up: we may print your comment in the magazine (if you don't want your comment printed, please let us know that within the comment itself).
Arch Linux
7% (758 votes)
2% (219 votes)
8% (922 votes)
8% (879 votes)
4% (457 votes)
6% (626 votes)
2% (172 votes)
12% (1323 votes)
4% (491 votes)
Red Hat
1% (123 votes)
4% (432 votes)
Ubuntu (any flavor, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc.)
29% (3220 votes)
Yellow Dog Linux
0% (10 votes)
Puppy Linux
2% (184 votes)
Linux Mint
9% (950 votes)
Other (let us know with a comment)
2% (245 votes)
Total votes: 11011


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

See the beauty of Gentoo?

Anonymous's picture

I use a rock solid "stable" system and just a package of almost daily development checkouts for some multimedia apps.

And a laptop that is more "bleeding edge" than possible with the standard methods.

And a minimal fileserver with just the packages needed to fulfill its purpuse.

And a Gateway/Firewall/Proxy/Router with a Hardened profile.

and so on, and so on.

If you are getting tired of fixing package conflicts, go back one or two steps from the bleeding edge. Use a stable core system and just unmask the packages you really want the bleeding edge features. This way you know why you invest the time to fix the blockage. Not because something breaks five steps down the dependency tree.

And one last tip: If you have the machine running for one hour a day only, maybe Gentoo is not for you. I have it running over weeks anyway to get my multimedia jobs done. This way an update does not hurt in any way.

I recently started using

blingenfelter's picture

I recently started using moonOS and Elive 2.0 Topaz. The desktop environment/windows manager are about the freshest thing going right now. They both use Enlightenment, and they're VERY interesting to play with. I'm also messing around with Salix (Slackware-based) but it doesn't recognize all my hardware... yet.

I use Gentoo. Everything

Anonymous's picture

I use Gentoo.

Everything else is just too hard to configure "the right way" (aka. my way ;-) )

Voted other. Because I use

Anonymous's picture

Voted other.

Because I use Zenwalk.

There is NO distribution called "Red Hat" in development now!

Anonymous's picture

Development of Red Hat distro ended couple of years ago when it split to Fedora and RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux)!
I voted for CentOS, since Red Hat is a bit outdated guys :-)

nice day

Ubuntu, LinuxMint, openSUSE, Red Hat/Fedora

Anonymous's picture

I have been using Ubuntu flavors as my primary OS for over two years mostly on notebooks. Have non-tech users running Ubuntu & LinuxMint (like having codecs and such to work without me having to work at it) with OpenOffice & Firefox they are rock solid for email, internet and office work. Edubuntu was great for students. Have not looked at it for a year or so. Sure like the .deb package management too.

At work I primarily use OpenSolaris on my work notebook. Started using Mac OS 10.5+ last summer, great OS. Looking at switching to Fedora on my 'go to' troubleshooting notebook to learn it and rpm's since most of my customers are using/switching to Red Hat (RHEL) for server and virtual machines.

TIP for WindowsXP/Vista/7 & 200x Server admins... load Windows into VirtualBox or VMware running on a Linux or OpenSolaris guest system. Runs faster and quick to "reload/rebuild"!!!

openSUSE is the preferred distribution

Anonymous's picture

openSUSE is stable, secure,robust,available and easy to administrate (client or server). I do not understand why some people would spend time as precious money setting up from scratch every simple stuff they will use in a regular operation. Maybe proud achievement but not practical.

OpenSuse is - as all other

Anonymous's picture

OpenSuse is - as all other binary distros - also quite restrictive what you can (and can't) do with it.

I try all of them from time to time and in all past trials in under an hour ended up having the choice to
1. forget about a wanted feature/config
2. change the distribution

Binary distributions are fast and "easy" to get a working System. But if you are just not part of the user group the distribution is pointing to, you have to spend hours searching the web for how to come around this and that problem. The more you lack to be a designated user, the more you will have to search. And some problems are just unsolvable without compiling by hand. And if you start compiling software by hand on a binary distribution you are mostly better off when directly starting with a distribution with an absolute minimum of restrictions.

I setup a new Gentoo system with five minutes of interaction. Who cares about the hours of compilation? It does it's magic automatically. You don't have to be there. If you even have to compile. Most of the time you could also just unpack a tarball of a installed system, edit hostname and IP adress and reconfigure the kernel.

I pick ubuntu and fedora

Anonymous's picture

Ubuntu is my distro of choice. Just because the fact of software center, ubuntu one, ubuntu one music store(coming soon) and many other reasons. Fedora would be my second choice because it seems to work good when ubuntu doesn't cut it. Like for example my old sony vaio would not work well in ubuntu. Yet it was outstanding with fedora. The only thing i dislike is the fact that fedora uses rpm instead of deb. I wish they were more backwards compatible than they already are. I enjoy the fact that there is another choice if get sick of deb. I dislike SUSE/Novell because Novell partnered with M$. I despise M$ greatly. M$ is too sneaky for me to trust them or have any affiliation with them. Novell choose a terrible move by partnering. I would most likely be using Suse as another choice if this wasn't the case.

I use OpenSuse daily for work...

Anonymous's picture

I could give a rat's derriere if Novell partnered with MS. If it's free, and it works nicely, to me that's not a bad deal.

An airline pilot doesn't assemble his cockpit before he flies the plane, so I see distro's such as Arch useless and impractical.

You mean you COULDN'T give a

Anonymous's picture

You mean you COULDN'T give a rat's derrière. Why do so many people get this wrong?

I agree with your point though :)


Anonymous's picture

For several years my distro of choice has been openSUSE. I love its stable upstream infrastructure, its support for things like mobile broadband, the rock solid system updater (YAST), the depth and breadth of the software repositories, and the opportunity to run cutting edge KDE4 (currently using 4.4.1).

RE: Ben's Response

Anonymous's picture


I appreciate your sentiments, but at the same time I disagree that we need Linux to be like Windows.

The desire to reach a broader audience with Linux is causing Linux to become like Windows in the stability category as well. Just recently I had setup a new server at my office. Doing some benchmarks, the kernel oops. That should never happen. That reminds me of the days of Windows and buggy drivers.

Run said benchmark again, another kernel oops. Hmm. Now, it could be hardware, but I rather doubt it - we don't buy $100 mainboards and stick them in a closet and call them a "server" - this is a really expensive machine, using high quality components. Besides that, this server was running fine with an older version of this distro, and moving to a new version of this distro caused the oops.

Well, the older system was running a vanilla kernel. I have adamantly been against using distro kernels - I don't much care for the lack of a defined development tree (ie 2.7 kernel) that we have now, but the current vanilla kernel model has been far more stable than the patchwork that these distros end up making of their own kernels.

The new distro though, was still running the distro's own kernel, with all of its ugly backported drivers, patches, and the like. I hadn't gotten around to replacing it yet.

However, after two kernel oops, I do install a vanilla kernel on the box, using the same .config that I use on pretty much all of my newish servers - consistency is a good thing in the server world.

What do you know? The benchmark application completes, and the system stops OOPSing.

I've been doing this for a long time, and I have a hard time at my office training newbies to Linux in this capacity - its a lot to absorb, and you have to have a desire to do it, otherwise you'll never get it. But that type of skillset (or that type of hardheaded "Its worked for the last decade for me..." mindset) is what is needed to do your job, make the boss happy, and have a low stress environment to work in.

Distros have to stop messing with the kernel to try to appease the lattest i[Phone|Pod|Mac|gf] generation and make their newest toy work.

Back to my original post: You need three things, and whatever distro you are using is pointless:

o A command line environment
o A GUI environment
o A compiler

So many distros, all doing the same thing in different ways, isn't making Linux any more stable - its making it more divided.

Dear Anonymous

Anonymous's picture

Hey - let's not use dirty language in this forum (W!nd0W$).

I certainly understand where you're coming from. I think there's some room for both - for the techie/command-line-magic people, and for end-users like me. The problem I have with compiling and command-line is... learning it from scratch. So many potential users are scared away from Linux because of the mysteriousness of it. I'd never want Linux to become Windows - I already feel like Linux prompts me too much for reassurance, "Do you really want to throw that away" - that kind of thing, like Windows.

But when Linux distros work well - and many do - there are millions of people who could make the switch. That's all I'd like to see, end-users enjoying a free system.


I am totally with you at the

Anonymous's picture

I am totally with you at the last point.



be happy with it.

I put more than one box together for family, running handconfigured Ubuntu or Debian (for the easy automatic upgradability) and tailored to match the usage cases of the users.

I never had a complaint of something not working or other problems with these boxes.

In earlier years I configured Windows boxes the same way. After just some weeks the machines "forgot" a device, messed up the config, or just stopped working. It is impossible that the users have done anything to harm the system, because they never had Administrator access!

Yes, Linux works well and for >90% of the users it would work better than Windows when configured right. And here lies the problem. The usage cases are too diverse to be adressed by a distributor. The same is true for Windows, but "everyone knows a guy that knows windows".

Software just can't be everything for everyone. And the projects trying have failed miserably. Or they try to "do everything in some fashion", meaning it works, regardless how and if it is anything near the optimal solution.

The tremendous amount of linux distributions is one way to cope with this problem. Most of them were started because the existing solutions did not - at least for the initiator(s) - fit the optimal solution.

Linux Distributions used frequently

Anonymous's picture

The nice thing about Linux is I am not stuck with one distribution. I pull out the one best suited for the job at hand (removable hard drives are nice):

Slackware to do text processing (LaTeX for writing/printing novels) and to back up my other distributions (rock solid and stable, I can tweak it the way I want to without messing up how it wants to work, as it by and large doesn't try to do things for you). I started with this distribution many years ago and it is probably my favorite.

DreamLinux for "normal" things like word processing, photos (also pretty stable, though not anywhere near bleeding edge).

Musix for music composition (Debian-based, well configured to have sound (Jack and Qsynth) work with its applications like Rosegarden and MuseScore), though quite an adventure trying to install to the hard drive.

I only update these distributions when a new version comes out that has something worth updating for. Otherwise, I don't even have them connected to the Internet.

What Other Distro do I use most frequently?

Anonymous's picture

I usually use Simply Mepis. I like the ease of installation, ability to torch it at will and replace it with a new copy without loosing my /home directory, and the fact that it allows me to easily find and install things that I might like but have to rebuild before they work. Other distro's are becoming too safe and therefore, too limited. I'm old school and like it that way.


blingenfelter's picture

Responding to the comment about "dumbing down" the Linux user:

I've been using Linux for two years, and I've enjoyed trying out maybe 50 distros in that time. I'm not a programmer, and learning to "blow up" a tarball and compile in the terminal was a real stretch for me. I disagree that teenage Linux users need more technical expertise, at least I do partially. Linux accounts for approximately 5% of the computer market, give or take a little, and what's standing in the way of Linux growth is precisely that mindset that Linux should be reserved for the technically expert users.

After finding out two years ago that Linux was accessible to normal people like me, I dove right in, and if Linux as a whole could make the public more aware that Linux can be for everyone, and that being able to do this things you recommend is NOT necessary to use Linux, that 5% market share would grow. It's that fear of the terminal and bash and techie terminology that has Linux still in the shadows, that and the fact that there's hundreds of distros... which one do I use?!?!


Oh, it is not that

Anonymous's picture

Oh, it is not that experienced Linux users hate "dumb" users.

I for my part take great joy of helping people trying to learn. I don't even mind explaining several times, starting with adam and eve, if the person is just willing to learn.

What I can't stand are those "Why can't it be this way?" yellers. They mostly fail to add "so that I don't have to learn something new." Because none of the specimen I met were interested in a productive criticism. They just were too lazy to adapt to the slightest change.

Linux as such is not comparable to a commercial Operating system. There are companies offering commercial solutions involving Linux, but they stopped trying to "conquer the desktop" a long time ago. Linux is community driven. And the members of the communities are offering their free time to help people out with their problems. What good could the members of the community have from a crowd of "Why can't it be this way?" yellers?

IMHO it does not make sense attracting everyone that seeks a replacement for the current OS.

The main objective when starting with Linux is that it is an alternative and therefore is doing the same in a slightly different way. Accept that or stick with the stuff you are used to.

And I honestly don't care if Linux has a "market share" of 1% or 50%. I would use it in either way because it suites me best.


Anonymous's picture

@ blingenfelter

I just recently moved to Arkansas and found few using LINUX... and when getting it out by word of mouth. The response was... "Yeah, I know about Linux, but that's just too much typing" by the majority.

So not only is the fear of the terminal, bash, and tech talk.... It's also laziness and lack of motivation to learn something new.

American Babylon - How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

yeah, well...

Anonymous's picture

I've always lived in Arkansas and pretty much all of my friends and family use some form/flavor of PCLinuxOS; young and old, laptops to towers. I can assure you that they would have NO interest in all the self-righteous Geek drivel being spewed here.

A desktop distro [as opposed to others] needs to be user-friendly and pretty if they want donations coming in. Too many people in the 'community' just want something for free, even if it doesn't work so well. Well, we donate our money to PCLinuxOS because its worth every penny for a OS that works right out of the box. None of us hate Windows, its just that Windows is not sufficient for our needs; but then neither is Ubuntu. Its all about voting with your wallet.

WAY too many old people think that young people want to use a CLI or a terminal in 2010. The Exclusive Nerd Club mentality is whats holding back Linux from the people with money who don't want to have to think about learning how to work a desktop. Don't work on your computer, do your work on your computer --is more our mindset. Good luck trying to sell your Geek distros to people who actually have to work for a living or to people who think multimedia can be fun.

Not looking in the right places

Anonymous's picture

I live in Arkansas and know a few people including myself that use Linux.

What I like to use

Anonymous's picture

I started using Ubuntu over a year ago because I felt that windows just wasn't doing enough for me. Since I've started off with it it's been great and with everything I do it's more than up to the task with everything I throw at it. So far I use it as a file, media server, network intrusion detection and general desktop use. All this on a single core 2.6 Celeron with 2 GB me RAM.

I've even played with Linuxmint but I still love Ubuntu.

Wow I must be old

Anonymous's picture

I've been using Linux since 1993. My install came from downloading the root and boot disks from a BBS at 9600bps.

I've used a bunch of distros. And, like most die-hard Linux people - I have a favorite... However, in the end, I really don't care what distro I'm using. All a distro needs to provide:

o A command line
o A GUI environment
o A compiler

From there, I can install whatever I need. Package managers make things simple, but they also make the next generation of computer users less sophisticated. How many teenage Linux users do you know that understand how to blowup a tarball, edit a header file, and then compile on their platform?

I see the changes to Linux as both a good thing and a bad thing - its becoming easier to use as a daily OS, and not just a server OS... However, its making things so easy, we're losing the technical education that came with doing things "The Hard Way", and are making our future workforce less capable.

PCLinuxOS only...

Anonymous's picture

I work for a living; why on Gods Green Earth would I want to STILL be using a Command Line Interface in a DESKTOP distro in 2010?

All that "Desktop oriented"

Anonymous's picture

All that "Desktop oriented" Distros make the installation easier for the lot of the "just users".

But in earlier times these people would have never used Linux.

As the numbers of computer users are growing exponentially, the base of people knowing the bowels of operating systems is equal or even growing compared to the times when every computer user had to write his own operating system. (Someone has to create and maintain those Oh, so easy to use distributions - and trust me: that is not an easy task to do)

There will always be curiosity. I used Suse for years - from 1994, when the installation was still an adventure and they delivered an excellent handbook for linux in total. But I learned more reading the Gentoo installation manual once than while using Suse for many years. And for people who wanna dig even deeper there is LinuxFromScratch. And after you did that you gladly go back to Gentoo and let portage do all that dependency checking, downloading, unpacking, patching, configuring, building and installing and still have most of the options you have when building completely by hand.

I am the optimal Gentoo user. When I have vim and a few other command line tools I am fully operational and can work while the rest of the system is building. That means after booting a new laptop with a liveCD (SystemRescueCD or GRML in my case) I need just a few minutes till I can work on my newly installed Gentoo system. Faster than with any binary distribution.

with all due respect...

Anonymous's picture

...you obviously don't have a Boss breathing down your neck yelling, "get back to work", or deadlines looming for a paycheck. I've used Linux from back in the day too, when it took all day just to run it.

You old-type tinkerers can be pretty self-righteous, but you also tend to think that "supporting your distro" means to tell people that if they aren't compiling everything from source then they're just lazy or stupid. You keep all those old machines around to remind yourselves of your own burgeoning self-worth; when all that arcane knowledge actually meant something to geeks.

The 'desktops' didn't make you obsolete; time did.


Anonymous's picture

I use Ubuntu mainly because it came with my new Dell computer. I am going to add Mint also because I can do a few more things with it.

Linux distribution I use frequantly

Anonymous's picture

For using system as server I prefer Novell/Suse
But for Desktop I prefer Mandriva

make that 66 for Barry and friends..

Anonymous's picture

Haven't even bothered with other distros (and so this makes an inept form of comparison for me personally) since Puppy, Woof, Quirky and the whole kennel form a lovely microcosm of workability and development/growth for users of all sorts.

The many features hold true to the original creator's vision of a system that works with the operator.


Which Linux depends on the job

Anonymous's picture

For secure operations I use SuSE. I switched from KDE4 to the KDE3 desktop because KDE4 is garbage.

For lots of other tasks I use Puppy Linux. It is great for backing up hard disks and the like. It also lets you turn an oldish PC into a tool for a specific job or something to give to a person who just needs a PC that does the needed stuff but doesn't have a lot of money.

Favorite distro

Anonymous's picture

I have been using various versions of Linux staring with Redhat 6, Suse, fedora, and the like. Then I switched to FreeBSD for a long while, now I’m on Ubuntu and I love it! I even use 64 bit Ubuntu at work! (I am the only one in a windows dominated office)

I differ depending on Desktop or Server usage

Anonymous's picture

For laptop or desktop use I personally like *buntu despite having been a long term RH used going back to RH2-3.

I have my completely non-technical wife running Mint, since the interface is clean and simple it doesn't confuse her with the key tasks she need like email, web and letter writing. She transferred to this from Windows XP and Office 2000 without problems. I on the other hand have just been forced to migrate to Office 2007 at work (I'm based on customer site) and found/am finding it excruciatingly annoying to perform simple tasks.

For servers I almost invariably use CentOS, and have since RH changed their support offerings back at RH9 when the Fedora Project was initiated.

New PCLinuxOS User

Anonymous's picture

I've been using linux for several years now. I've tried most of the major distributions for at least a year each plus some others. Like most i've been trying different distributions to find the one that fit me the best. There are a few main things I look for in a linux distribution.

First performance. One of the main things people say about linux is it gets better performance than windows. Most of the time that's true. But not all linux distributions perform the same. Yes I do realize it's not the same on every computer that's why i've had to try them all myself rather than just reading reviews on them all.

Second is usability. I'm not a newb to computers or linux. I have a computer science degree covering both windows and linux administration and am fully comfortable with command line in both. In fact on my server I prefer to use slackware because they focus on stability rather then spend a lot of time with fancy configuration tools. But for my day to day computer I want something designed to not only work fast but to be easy to use and update. This saves me time so I can spend more time enjoying my computer, and gives me something I can reccomend to my friends.

General Feel. I'm not quite sure how to explain this. When comparing similar software and especially operating systems there is a personal taste involved with the selection. This typically involves things like the layout, colors, themes, ect. For operating systems like linux distributions this also includes the configuration options and ease of use. In the world today everyone wants things that are easy to use. I don't look at the theme and colors as these can be easily changed, most of the time I do anyway. I do look at the general layout and how things are configured.

Summary. The distributions i've tried include Suse, Mandrivia, slackware, fedora, vector linux, and most recently PCLinuxOS. This is by no means a full list but I think it's the major ones I liked the most at the time I was using them. All these distributions met my few qualifications on some level but they all seemed to be missing the feeling that it's a true reflection of my tastes and preferences. I'm not quite sure how to explain this but basically it's like it's designed just for me.

This last thing is something I never really expected to find but I kept searching anyway just in case. When I first read about pclinuxos a few years ago I just passed it off as another mediocre distro not worth my time. When I saw it climbing on the major distro list at distrowatch.com I had to try it. I'm not too fond of the windows vista look in the kde version of pclinuxos but again that's something that can be changed relatively easily. Everything else just seems to fit. Just about everything I need can be configured easily, all the programs I use are in the official repository, and it just seems to fit me. I've only started using recently but already i'm ready to using it as my primary operatings system and ready to start reccomending it to all my friends.


Riki's picture

PCLinuxOS is definitely, by far, the most user friendly distro that performs like a dream. No other Linux distro can touch it, believe me. Users of other Linux distros don't know what they are missing because they have not bothered to try PCLOS. That is a fact. Otherwise why is PCLOS membership constantly increasing with new members that were not fully satisfied? They try PCLOS and get hooked. The forums confirm this. And something else, people in general don't like change, hence the reluctance to try other operating systems. My guess is that 90%+ of home users are PC illiterate and are therefore stuck in their ways. They prefer to moan and groan rather than do something about it.

Ubuntu: the most user-friendly linux distro to me

Anonymous's picture

I've tried distro-hopping with so many linux distributions, I always end up going back to ubuntu. It's the most user friendly in my opinion.

PUPPY LINUX does it for me.

Anonymous's picture

It proves that you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Lightweight, portable, versatile, with an excellent support system and so easy to use, Puppy even makes this code-ignorant user want to learn something about BASH scripting.
I believe i've begun a life sentence.

Puppy Linux is the Lego of the Linux world!

Anonymous's picture

I use and Develop TEENpup Linux which is based on Puppy Linux. Puppy allows anyone to create their ideal version of Linux more easily than other Distro's. Having said that someone will find it easier to install a larger range of Applications in say Mandriva, Ubuntu etc. Puppy is the Lego of the Linux world. It puts no restrictions on playing with the system and system files which can led to an non working system within seconds. But due to its nature a re-install or reboot brings the whole lot up running again. You learn, you develop and get an understanding on how it all works a lot better than most other Linux Distro's can provide.

Long live "Barry K" as he is the Founder and Godfather of Puppy, Woof and Quirky Linux and without his inventiveness there'd be a lot less Linux Users out there.

Well done

Anonymous's picture

It is actually a GNU/Linux ecosystem rather than an array distributions.
Wise thing about the question asked in the survey is they are not asking our favourite distribution, instead "frequently used distro". It is really nice.


Anonymous's picture

Puppy is small, fast, and simple. It runs on my old machines and does everything I need. I don't need to install it if I don't want to. Because it's highly portable, I use it fairly often to rescue data from friend's crashed systems.

The end of openSUSE?

Anonymous's picture

Earlier today I posted in this forum about my experience with openSUSE, my favorite Linux distro. Just this moment, while perusing IT Wire, I found this article that talks about a possible sale of Novell, the owners of openSUSE to some investor/ raider:


According to the author of the piece, the sale and possible dismemberment of Novell might result in the end of openSUSE as we know it. This would be a true shame. Something for openSUSE aficionados like me (and, hopefully, for Linux Journal) to keep a very watchful eye on. Thanks for the space given me.


Anonymous's picture


Which distribution?

Anonymous's picture

Novell Suse on six computers in two different locations. I started with Caldera, then Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu and a few that I can't even remember. Suse does everything I want.

Ubuntu and Kubuntu are separate distributions

Anonymous's picture

"Ubuntu (any flavor, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc.)"

imho, I don't think you can count Ubuntu and Kubuntu under the same distribution. In fact, they are separate downloads, and they have separate support forums and documentation. Kubuntu is a nice idea, but it is the lonely cousin of Ubuntu. I tried Kubuntu and it too many problems. So I downloaded Ubuntu and run it on a VM. In fact, I've got several distributions running in VM.

Doesn't a separate download, separate documentation, separate forum, separate url's, make it a unique and separate distribution. Anything else would be an artificial bump in Ubuntu's distribution numbers.

Which Linux distribution do you use most frequently?

Anonymous's picture

Puppy Linux, of course!
* - It's the fastest I've found on a variety of hardware
* - It has the best support forum
* - It's the easiest to modify to your own taste
* - It makes me smile every time I turn my PC on
Thanks for asking, LJ!
Aitch :)


Anonymous's picture

Well, I'm using a lot of linux distros. Mandriva, OpenSuSE, Gentoo, Arch, Mepis, Ubuntu and sidux. All of them are wonderful.

But sidux got me. It's not really for newbies, therefore I'd recommend Mandriva, OpenSuSE, Mepis and Ubuntu. But sidux is easy to install and easy to upgrade. And with the handbook and the "upgrade warnings" in the sidux forum nearly nothing can go wrong. Well, I'm just in love with sidux ;-).


Anonymous's picture

I like the look and feel of mint. It's easy to customize and tinker with, without being a programmer.

I also like the fact that I can search through Ubuntu forums and user documentation to find help. The information in these is vast.

Which Linux Distro Do I like & Why?

Anonymous's picture

openSUSE 11.2 is the best distro for my needs. I began with Linux using Suse 7.0. At that time 7.0 is what would install on my hardware. Since then I have tried RH, Mandriva,Debian,Xandros,Knoppix, DSL and others but always I return to openSUSE! Why you ask? Things like support, community, extensive repositories, openSUSE Studio, Forums, Build Service are important, but most of all openSUSE is FAMILIAR to me so I can get things done quickly.

Linux Mint is my vote

Anonymous's picture

Linux Mint is the best out of the box experience I've tried. My computer is for writing screenplays, books, building websites, etc. The programs I use install easily like downloading bookwrite and celtx. Video playback and flash work without installing anything extra.


Anonymous's picture

I have tried the others from time to time and I am sure they are all usable. I like Red Hat offering better and I believe Red Hat efforts in giving back to the community are the greatest of all Linux distributions without question. Red Hat makes it a point to purchase technology companies strategic to their goals and open source them. That deserves support. I also like their ethics related to software ownership and yea I too install stuff they don't. While I like the healthy debate over which distro is best and its related business competition I don't want to see Linux distro companies that give so much back to the community suffer from those that don't. I am mostly thinking of Oracle with it's unbreakable distro but there are others mostly proprietary companies leaching off of the open source community. Having strong open source Companies is the BEST thing for the Open Source community at large.

Martin T.