Ubuntu Alternatives: Other Distros - Why Do People Use Them?

[rob86 2]

Ubuntu is apparently the most popular linux distribution out there, but despite that, many people still use and are dedicated to other ones. I'm just wondering what the appeal is? Ubuntu is the only "big" one I've used (not counting Puppy linux since it's not really in the same league) so I don't know much about others. I like Ubuntu, but I want to be aware of some of the more popular options.The huge amount of distros out there is overwhelming, to be honest. I mean to someone just putting their toes into the Linux-verse, I'm trying to understand concepts like, Ubuntu, like a thousand other distros, is based on Debian. There are a thousand other distros based on ubuntu, which is based on Debian. Yet people use Debian, despite the fact that there are a bazillion "improved upon" versions of it.I've done some comparing of Ubuntu reviews ot other distros, and Ubuntu always gets pretty good reviews for everything, hardware support, updates, packages, support yet many people seem to label it as a "Newbie" linux, and recommend more difficult distros, which have worse reviews in almost every area. Are they just avoiding Ubuntu because they're elitist and think if an OS is easy to use, it must suck, or are there actually good reasons for using other OS's? So, can anyone tell me why people use different distros? I gather some are used for servers, but surely people must use some for just normal desktop purposes as well..Also, when a distro is labeled as being for "experts", how "expert" is expert anyway?

[shangshaptak 0]

Some of the distros are geared towards specific task-flows. i.e. Ubuntu Studio is totally focused on the creation of multimedia content. Some are more lightweight, some are web based. I heard there's a distro named goobuntu, used specifically by google employees internally. The upcoming chrome OS is going to built on that.

[rvalkass 5]

Ubuntu is apparently the most popular linux distribution out there, but despite that, many people still use and are dedicated to other ones. I'm just wondering what the appeal is? Ubuntu is the only "big" one I've used (not counting Puppy linux since it's not really in the same league) so I don't know much about others. I like Ubuntu, but I want to be aware of some of the more popular options.

Some of the more popular distributions (discounting Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc. etc.) are Fedora, openSUSE, Mandriva, Debian, PCLinuxOS and Gentoo. Of course there are plenty of others besides these few.

The huge amount of distros out there is overwhelming, to be honest. I mean to someone just putting their toes into the Linux-verse, I'm trying to understand concepts like, Ubuntu, like a thousand other distros, is based on Debian. There are a thousand other distros based on ubuntu, which is based on Debian. Yet people use Debian, despite the fact that there are a bazillion "improved upon" versions of it.

To those first coming over to Linux, they generally ask for advice on how to do it, and will either search for articles comparing the distributions and explaining what a distribution actually is, or will have people they are already talking to about it and can ask for advice.

Why do people use one distribution over another? They're all good for different things. Debian is a little behind the times but it is stable as a rock, so it's perfect for situations where the system cannot be allowed to crash, such as servers. Ubuntu uses slightly newer versions of all the software packages, but loses some stability and compatibility in the process. Distributions built on Ubuntu often use newer packages still, but you lose much of the community backing and support. Fedora and openSUSE are sponsored by producers of commercial Linux distributions (Red Hat and Novell respectively), and improvements made for the commercial versions often filter down to the free versions. Gentoo goes to the opposite end of the simplicity scale - everything is compiled from source, from scratch, when you install it. So, tailored for your computer and you get the latest versions of everything, but it takes a while to install and compiling can be a source of annoyance to those used to package managers.

I've done some comparing of Ubuntu reviews ot other distros, and Ubuntu always gets pretty good reviews for everything, hardware support, updates, packages, support yet many people seem to label it as a "Newbie" linux, and recommend more difficult distros, which have worse reviews in almost every area. Are they just avoiding Ubuntu because they're elitist and think if an OS is easy to use, it must suck, or are there actually good reasons for using other OS's?

Ubuntu has become almost the de facto standard due to its popularity, and this can be seen in reviews; often a reviewer is comparing a distribution to Ubuntu (whether consciously or not) and reviewing on that basis, rather than considering the distribution on its own. This of course means they tend to mark down distributions that do anything different to Ubuntu. Of course, that doesn't apply to all reviews, but it's just a trend I have noticed.

Some people are elitist, and just want to use something different to the mainstream, so shun Ubuntu and similar distributions. That, of course, is a ridiculous standpoint to base advice or reviews on. However, there are good reasons for choosing other distributions. They have different levels of stability, offer different versions of software in their repositories, have different communities, interact differently with their users, have different organisational and leadership structures, etc. etc. There are plenty of different reasons to choose a particular distribution. When I built my new PC I saw it as an opportunity to try out different distributions. I burned loads of CDs and tried out varying distributions, before settling on Kubuntu simply because it had the best support for my graphics card.

Also, when a distro is labeled as being for "experts", how "expert" is expert anyway?

Obviously there is no hard and fast definition. Generally, however, if a distribution is labelled as being for experts they mean that you have to compile all software from source or have to do extensive manual configuration of your system. Some people like that level of customisation and control, others don't. Again, it's a matter of personal preference.

[mahesh2k 0]

So, can anyone tell me why people use different distros? I gather some are used for servers, but surely people must use some for just normal desktop purposes as well..

Ever since linux started many groups and enterprise companies came up with their own business and distribution model for distros. This way the the type of customers they've created around their distribution. Red hat, Debian, Slackware, gentoo has their own ways of managing packages, repository and community, support and development. This way each distribution is different and unique in their own ways. Also the distribution evolved cause of many such parameters and you'll find each linux distribution community different.

For example, Knoppix and Gnoppix were created for LiveCD and as resort for rescue disk. But later it git evolved and many dedicated users for knoppix made this project more succesful. The idea of liveCD was very popular among linux and other OS market. Almost every OS started their LiveCD project because of this. Another example is take a look at how complexity is there in debian community. How community is maintained, how packages in repository are requested etc. When some people found complexity in such popular distros, they started small groups to simplify things. Ubuntu and some other forks of debian born this way.

Multiple distribution helps to solve things fast. It also allows newcomers in linux to pick easy distro for themselves. Gives chance to developers to pick multiple communities to contribute their code. Multiple distribution also solves bug issues, for example some forks of debian commit bug fixed directly to debian. This way Multiple distribution though cause confusion for beginners are excellent way to get things done and moving.

[H.O.D 0]

Most people say that Ubuntu is the most friendly distro for the new Linux user. It is indeed simple to learn compared to the other distros but it can be a bit complicated at times and the security is questionable too. That doesn't mean that you need to get worried and switch to another distro now! ALl linux distros are 100% secured than windows and all the attacks that work on windows wont work here. But linux hacking is getting more and more powerful by the day and Ubuntu lacks certain security features required to keep the user safe. I think this is the main reason why more advanced users use distros like Fedora, Mandriva, etc.

[mahesh2k 0]

Ubuntu lacks certain security features required to keep the user safe. I think this is the main reason why more advanced users use distros like Fedora, Mandriva, etc.

Can you explain those security issues. If you found any issue related to ubuntu that you think needs to be patched feel free to report it on Launchpad. That way it will ubuntu to stay up with the security issues. Members will benefit from it as well.

[The Simpleton 2]

Ubuntu has security issues?!!! Now that's amusing....Okay, I know it's not entirely perfect, but no OS in this world is perfect in terms of security. I read sometime ago that one common complaint from advanced users was that Ubuntu didn't come in with a built-in firewall and that was a security concern. I'm not sure how much of a concern it really is, but I have to agree that providing an in-built firewall would give some assurance to new users about security. Apart from that I don't think there are other faults in Ubuntu, unless of course, you leave your system completely unprotected, and use a weak root password, etc!

[truefusion 3]

In my lifetime i've only tried out the following distros: *Ubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, Gentoo, Fedora and Zenwalk. Why would i use the others mentioned in that list? For Gentoo it would be due it being a rolling-release distro rather than a cycle-release and perhaps for performance reasons. For Debian it would be due to the fact that you can change to a rolling-release repository. For Zenwalk it would be for performance reasons. Fedora, err, i wouldn't use it. Mandriva i would use it for performance, its looks, and ease-of-use (especially with its Control Center)—in other words, i see Mandriva as the second best distro next to Ubuntu.

Why would i not use the other distros? Gentoo, being a source-based distro, requires too much maintenance; due to its the required maintenance, it kept me from being as productive as i normally am. Zenwalk, when i first tried it, didn't have a decent repository; that may have changed by now, though. Mandriva, when i first tried it out, didn't have that great of a repository, but that has changed. Mandriva 2009 hardware drivers didn't play nice with my setup; the TV tuner driver conflicted with the Nvidia driver. However, the Mandriva Wiki provided a way to set up the X configuration as a temporary "fix" and the Ubuntu forums had the actual solution for the problem i had with Mandriva 2009. But since my GFX card died, i now have an ATI gfx card, so that shouldn't be a problem now. In other words, i don't currently have a reason for not using Mandriva. As for Fedora, it never played nice with my $HOME directory. Compared to the other distros listed, Fedora doesn't provide any performance gains. Debian, though may be considered stable by many, it was unstable for me in certain areas, and unless you switch to their other repositories, you'll get stuck with old programs (which is supposed to be the reason for its stability).

[...] Ubuntu lacks certain security features required to keep the user safe. I think this is the main reason why more advanced users use distros like Fedora, Mandriva, etc.

You referring to SELinux? I know Fedora has it installed. Can't really say if SELinux would be an advantage (for home users), but you can install it on your Ubuntu system (though it seems to have the libraries already installed, at least on my machine).

[rob86 2]

I don't want to disagree with all these advanced users, doesn't Ubuntu come with a built in firewall-ish thing called iptables? It's not a fancy GUI, but as far as I know, it does the job, doesn't it? Firestarter seems to be the front end for it.

[aquzer 0]

because its so simple for russian suers, as for me... IMHOSo sorry for my English