Give your thoughts about Linux.

part of it is that internet users frequently take themselves too seriously.
^^^ +1! :p

Ab-so-lutely. I couldn't have put it better myself. And as a blunt-spoken Yorkshireman, I'll call said internet users a**holes to their faces if I feel it's warranted...

(No, I know I'm not very "PC". Don't care if it offends folk. I tell it like it is..! o_O )

Haven't got time for self-centred idiots. Of course, what really niggles me is that so many folks simply haven't ever learned what it means to simply hold a conversation....

Mike. ;)
Last edited:

We'll always have people who complain about Linux for whatever the reason but who cares.

My thoughts...Install...Run...Enjoy.

Heh. I suspect that, by this statement, you're referring to official, recognised, brand-name Photoshop, Office, Dragon Naturally-speaking, etc. Stuff like that.

No, these haven't been ported to Linux, and likely never will be. The Linux ethos is free-to-download, free-to-use and free-to-modify. Companies like Adobe and Microsoft are in it to make money.....and the Linux eco-sphere grates on them. They cannot understand anybody wanting to put in hours of their time without receiving remuneration.....simply because they want to.

However, as m'colleague @Brickwizard says - quite rightly! - most folks complain that the choice of stuff is just TOO much. Distros like Debian have well over 60,000 packages in their repositories - all curated, audited and security-checked & maintained - and I can guarantee there will be a Linux equivalent for anything you might want to do. Yes, there'll be a learning-curve; buttons will be in different, perhaps unexpected places, and the work-flow will probably be different, too - plus they'll ALL have strange names! - but it's perfectly possible to do everything under Linux that you did under Windows.

The main difference is that unlike Windows - where it's all about support contracts and paid-for help - in the Linux community it's all about everybody helping each other for free, via forums like this, chat-clients, etc. Just remember this, and you'll not go far wrong; you haven't paid any Linux developer for their time and they don't "owe" you anything. Thus, you're in no position to make demands of any kind.

BUT.......once you've got the hang of what you're doing, you'll have a system you can make sit-up, beg, dance, make you a cup of coffee (okay; maybe NOT that last one!) YOU will be in full control.....and you will NOT be at the mercy of some huge, anonymous corporation with its own aims in mind.

Good 'ere, ain't it? :p

Mike. ;)
I wish I could find a nice video creation program that would let me do animation in Linux. I'm using Debian 11.7. I have Imagination and Kdenlive.


Matthew Campbell
Debian Linux and others have the game Flight Gear. You'll want a joystick though.


Matthew Campbell
I believe @The Duck has previously tried Flight Gear. I don't think he was very impressed by it.

I built it into a 'portable' version for Puppy Linux, but by the time you had all the data files downloaded and installed, it was MASSIVE. Not too many folks bothered with the 3.1 GB download, so I eventually withdrew it to save myself a few GB at

Mike. ;)
Last edited:
My thoughts about Linux.
i love it!
i thank all the people who work on it and help us noobs use it. ;)
The following is just my opinion. Opinions will vary. There seems to be a little passive/aggressiveness on this subject.
For the most part, no one wants to come out and just say brandX is the best one. But then, everyone kind of does it anyway. I can tell you which distro most of the people on this website will recommend, simply by comments they've made over the last couple of years. I'm as guilty as anyone. Having said that, I will do my best to keep this generic.

This is a little like asking what's the best vehicle for me? A motorcycle, a subcompact, a pickup truck, an SUV, or a semi tractor-trailer.
It kind of depends on what you want it to do.

Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and openSuSE all have reputations for being user friendly and easy to install.If you're a beginner, I would likely start with one of those.

Kali and NST are more pen testing/hacker based, if you're a beginner, I would stay away from these. We probably get more questions about how to do simple things in Kali than any other distro. The video driver doesn't work, the wi-fi doesn't work, I can't compile this thing. Most of these questions are thing experienced users know how to do pretty easily. If you're a newbie beginner, I highly recommend you stay away from Kali Linux.

If you're primaily interested in servers, cloud VMs, and data center Linux's, I would go with Redhat, CentOS, AlmaLinux, RockyLinux, or EuroLinux. Most of these are based on Redhat, which is itself based on Fedora. These Linux distro's have a lot of enterprise tools not available in some distro's, and not installed by default in other distro's. Depending on which website statistics you believe, Redhat and it's clones own over 75% of the data centers
and cloud back-ends.

If you're primarily interested in the "latest and greatest" newer Linux stuff, I would go with Arch or Fedora. They tend to be more "up to date", but less thoroughly tested than other distro's. The nice thing about these distros is they get the newest drivers for video, wi-fi and sound cards before everyone else.
My personal opninion of Arch, is that it's not for beginners. It is one of the most difficult to install distros, and pacman is probably the least intutitive package manager in existance.

If desktop GUI innovations are your primary interest, I would go with Ubuntu or Mint.

If Linux system inoovations are your primary interest, and the future of Linux is a concern, I would go with Fedora, they were first with most of the common sytem practices, wayland, network-manager, systemd, podman, pipewire, etc...

If the number of vendor supported packages is important to you, then Ubuntu, Mint and Fedora are definitely the way to go. They literally have thousands more packages available than just about everyone else. There are some 3rd party packages that will only install on Ubuntu or Rehat/Fedora. That's not to say you can't get them working on other distros, it's just a lot more work, and a lot of manual intervention is required.

If you are into "roll your own". I would start with either Ubuntu or Fedora, as they have the best development tools available.
Then start with LFS ( Linux from scratch ) and go through the exercise of building your own custom version of Linux. Then you'll have a good idea of how much it is to build and maintain a distro and all the packages associated with it.

If documentation is important to you, Redhat, openSuSE, SLESsuse, Ubuntu and Fedora are all very well documented, head and shoulders above almost everyone else.

If security is a big concern, Redhat is what the US government, the military and the RSA use. At a more consumer grade level Qubes, Tails, and Alpine are pretty good.
But keep in mind, you can "harden" just about any Linux distro. There are some vendors that specialize in this and sell "pre-hardened" Linux images.

If getting back to Linux roots in important to you, Debian is probably the closest to what Linus originally wrote, but I understand he uses Fedora these days.

If stability is important to you, go with what is called an LTS version of Linux. These typically use older kernels and older libraries, that are more tested over a year or two before they are released. Redhat and it's clones are probaly the most stable, and have the most enterprise tools like clustering, NIC teaming and bonding, they are made to be resilient and very stable. Redhat's highest priority is uptime for systems. Ubuntu and Debian are also gaining ground in the Linux server market.

If you like being different from the crowd, a few good distro's I have used that are less popular and less mainstream would be PuppyLinux, MX Linux, Parrot Linux, Easy OS, and Mandriva. In the end, it's hard to go wrong, most of them are all good. Again, it depends on what you want to do. If you more of a traditionalist and like the way "Linux has always done it in the past". There are some distros that still avoid systemd, networkManager, and wayland.

AT&T, Tmobile, Chase Bank, and US Bank are all Redhat Shops. Amazon Cloud runs mostly on "Amazon Linux" which really Fedora. Azure cloud runs on Windows Servers.
Google cloud and Oracle run on OracleLinux, which is a Redhat clone.

Ubuntu is support by Canonical which has a lot of partnerships and ties to Microsoft.
Redhat is owned by IBM. A European group called EQT owns SuSE Linux. It's interesting to note that SuSE is the most popular distro in Europe.
As much as I hate "supporting the man" and corporate distros, the truth is, they have best support, best documentation, and most packages. One of the reason Linux exists, was the get away from commercial OS's like MacOS and Windows. There are plenty of distros that do a good job of avoiding corporate sponsorship, there is a balance here with some distros. RockyLinux is a good example, it's 100% community based, has no corporate sponsorship, but is 100% based on
Redhat. reports over a 100 active Linux distributions. In reality, most of these could be tied back their parents.
Debian, Fedora, Arch, and SuSE. The background screen and logos might be different, the default packages installed might be slightly different, but for the most they are the same.

For the record, BSD is not Linux. All the derivitives, such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, are a lot like Linux, but it's a different kernel, and while many of the commands are the same as in Linux, many are not. Generally it's closer to "real" UNIX.

The UNIX flavors are BSD, HPUX, AIX, and Solaris, there are a couple more I can't remember the names of right now.

MX, Parrot and Ubuntu are based on Debian.
Redhat and all it's clones ( AlmaLinux, RockyLinux, CentOS, OracleLinux, etc.. ) are based on Fedora.
Mint is based on Debian or Ubuntu.
SuSE(SLES) is based on openSuSE.
EndevorOS is based on Arch.
Gentoo is pretty much a stand alone distro that doesn't copy anyone else.
This is by no means a complete list, but hopefully it will give you an idea of how all this ties together.
This is a touchy subject, there are sites like...
That seem to infer all Linux is based off Debian, but many distro's are not. If you google "Redhat family tree" you'll see an entirely different list.
Last edited:
I first used Linux in 1994/95. Linux has been a "daily" part of my life since 1997 and I've used it professionally since 1999.

I quit using Linux on the desktop (for the most part) about 10 years ago. Primarily for two reasons.
  1. Linux doesn't support all the applications I run (Wine isn't always good enough and that brings up #2)
  2. Using Linux in more cases than on Windows requires a bit more effort. Linux on the desktop doesn't always just work. Yeah, that happens on Windows too, but far less often.
These days, I work a lot of hours, I have a family, and I'm a habitual hobbyist. Between all those things and already being a technology guy who does a lot of stuff. I am no longer interested in figuring out why something isn't working.

That said, I run Linux servers (hundreds of them) every day. It's my server of choice.
MX, Parrot and Ubuntu are based on Debian.
Redhat and all it's clones ( AlmaLinux, RockyLinux, CentOS, OracleLinux, etc.. ) are based on Fedora.
Mint is based on Debian or Ubuntu.
SuSE(SLES) is based on openSuSE.
EndevorOS is based on Arch.
Gentoo is pretty much a stand alone distro that doesn't copy anyone else.
This is by no means a complete list, but hopefully it will give you an idea of how all this ties together.
This is a touchy subject, there are sites like...
That seem to infer all Linux is based off Debian, but many distro's are not. If you google "Redhat family tree" you'll see an entirely different list.

Insert passive aggressive nod of approval and sly wink here. I was a bit moody that day ;)
Thanks @dos2unix for post #33.

A few observations:

Mandriva looks like it's discontinued.
Manjaro continues.

Slackware is probably more like original UNIX than Debian.

Linus has mentioned that he doesn't use Debian because its software is not so up to date. He may have other reasons as well.

There are over 67,000 packages by name in debian at the moment of inquiry today.
I'd be interested in the number in other distros, but I can't get a reasonable estimation of them as easily as with a command like apt-cache pkgnames | wc -l in debian?
Last edited:
If you're running reposync in RPM based distro's. It will tell you.
You can also do a wc -l of the ls after everything is downloaded.

I currently have 48,388 in my fedora repo, but that's with rpm fusion added.

But the vendor repo's are only a part of it. For example...

You can download an RPM or a DEB, but the docs say, it "MUST" be Ubuntu 22.10 or Redhat/CentOS 8.4
I have gone through the exercise of installing this multiple times. The docs are right, it won't install on Mint, Debian, or even Ubuntu 23.04 without a lot of finagling.

I have about 15 or so packages like this, that only run on a very specific distro.
Veritas Cluster Server for example only runs on Redhat/Clones, no Debian option for this.

What makes all this tricky, is if you run a GUI installer like Discover for KDE or Dragora for MATE
and you click on "List all applications" it only shows about 3,500 or so. I did a little searching around
and found it, system libraries, and kernel binaries are not counted as an application.
Anything tied to the system, like networkManager base, systemd base, wayland base, pipewire-base,
etc.. are not counted as an application because they aren't really an application per se.

I've also noticed that dependencies aren't always counted. For example if I query nginx in the GUI
it only returns 4 packages, but if I do it from the command line, it returns 33. Things like nginx-filesystem
and nginx-mimetypes don't show up as independent applications, I guess that make sense, as they can't run
without the core application.
Slackware is probably more like original UNIX than Debian.

After thinking about a little more. I agree. But at least slackware has a package manager of sorts, even back then.
Last edited:

Give your thoughts about Linux.​

...the range of applications is not as extensive as on Windows. It appears that the battery life is not as long on Linux as it is on Windows, but the customizability of Linux is truly excellent, which I absolutely adore.
I am a fan of operating systems. I love to fool around with them, learn them, explore them. I adore OS/400 for its ease of use, it's power, it's security management, it's object orientation, it's singel level storage, and a lot of other things. I love MS DOS for its ease of use for a 8086 assembly programmer, it openness. NewDos/80 was great in its simplicity and the things it made possible on a TRS 80. MS Windows was great after the character based DESQview in that is had a real GUI. And I can go on. Each and every OS I have had the chance to play around with had great features and great shortcomings.

Linux is not different. Maybe it does drain your battery faster than Windows, I would be surprised, but it could be. I recognize that there just is a lot more applications available for Windows than for Linux.

But what I absolutely love about the entire *NIX family, and espacially nowadays about Linux: as I heard Sean Haas of the Advent of Computing podcast say in his episode on the origins of Unix, this operating system was build with programmers in mind.

You can see that in the file system, the way everything is a file on the logical level. You can see it in the piping system, the vast amount of tools, the slightly anarchistic community, and so on, and so on.

At this moment I use Linux, MacOS, MS Windows on a daily basis and NextZXOS and NewDos/80 for hobby projects. Each have their positives. But the two *nix systems I like most.
Linux is the new Windows we should all just switch to FreeBSD, even if it's just for having a demon as a logo! ;) :)