4 ms·

Man I use to buy slackware cd's from walnut creek back in the day, dialup wasn't fast enough to get the latest version. https://archive.org/details/walnutcreek

Man I use to buy slackware cd's from walnut creek back in the day, dialup wasn't fast enough to get the latest version. https://archive.org/details/walnutcreekcdrom https://archive.org/details/walnutcreekcdrom old cdrom.com Think I went from slackware to mandrake to fedora/suse then ubuntu(lts)/suse(tumbleweed), to now just Ubuntu(lts) due to ppa's and google/nvidia docker/drivers dev work. For the servers I'm ditching centos7(eol) for amazon linux 2 now that they support on premise deploys for free. AL3 is unknown at the moment for support... I did for a short time use FreeBSD for servers back in the buffer overflow attacks on Linux when doing my self hosting, but that was 20+ years ago. Fun Memories and no idea what the future will be. Even Debian is pretty damn good now, but Ubuntu has more polish but Debian has more packages and a better install. IMHO.

vergessenmir 5y ago
I took a similar journey. I remember getting slackware on 16 3.5inch floppy disks and being super excited on being able to run an OS that took less memory and being able to build and run polyray faster. Then I moved onto slack from walnut creek. Then mandrake Then redhat Then Ubuntu when I got to uni.
fullstop 5y ago
I spent a few months downloading the floppy sets at night just to find out that my SCSI card was not supported.
sildur 5y ago
Under which metric is Ubuntu more polished than Debian? I had the impression that Ubuntu is more user friendly, but buggier than Debian. Honestly asking.
- sshine 5y ago
  >> Ubuntu has more polish > Ubuntu more polished than Debian? I'm not a native English speaker, but I sense a discrepancy here: "Ubuntu has more polish" = "it ships with more UI trinkets and background processes enabled; it is more plug-and-play". Whereas "Ubuntu is more polished" carries the notion that it's a finer product that people put more effort into; that can't easily be said. They're both fine products, but have different distro goals.
- IronWolve 5y ago
  Ubuntu desktops releases I mean are more visually nice on install, Debian needs more configuration after install. Both are basically the same, just the Configuration for Mate looks better on install for the desktop distros of ubuntu. Kinda like how Mint was doing it.

vergessenmir 5y ago

I took a similar journey. I remember getting slackware on 16 3.5inch floppy disks and being super excited on being able to run an OS that took less memory and being able to build and run polyray faster. Then I moved onto slack from walnut creek. Then mandrake Then redhat Then Ubuntu when I got to uni.

fullstop 5y ago

I spent a few months downloading the floppy sets at night just to find out that my SCSI card was not supported.

sildur 5y ago

Under which metric is Ubuntu more polished than Debian? I had the impression that Ubuntu is more user friendly, but buggier than Debian. Honestly asking.

sshine 5y ago
>> Ubuntu has more polish > Ubuntu more polished than Debian? I'm not a native English speaker, but I sense a discrepancy here: "Ubuntu has more polish" = "it ships with more UI trinkets and background processes enabled; it is more plug-and-play". Whereas "Ubuntu is more polished" carries the notion that it's a finer product that people put more effort into; that can't easily be said. They're both fine products, but have different distro goals.
IronWolve 5y ago
Ubuntu desktops releases I mean are more visually nice on install, Debian needs more configuration after install. Both are basically the same, just the Configuration for Mate looks better on install for the desktop distros of ubuntu. Kinda like how Mint was doing it.