4 ms·

I suppose it's time to switch to Fedora, now, even though I've been holding out for as long as humanly possible. This just pushes me over the edge.

• chao- 14y ago
  I'm much the opposite: I keep giving Ubuntu a shot, only to find myself disappointed by GNOME, Unity, and the other usual suspects of the DE world. With no need for Unity & Friends, I just use stock Debian or Crunchbang. I'm rooting for Canonical to do well with this so that I might finally be able to switch to using Ubuntu in order to get a well-supported, well-integrated, targeted-by-most, "Fast and Fluid" Desktop Environment. Up until now I still hide away in a corner with my annoying-to-maintain (but certainly "Fast and Fluid") Openbox environment.
  • kunai 14y ago
    I do agree with you on the well-supported and well-integrated part. Ubuntu has the polish and ease of use of OS X with the great hardware support of (nearly) Windows, with the solidity of a steadfast GNU/Linux foundation. But whenever I hear about a new development in the Canonical world, it's always about something that appeases consumers rather than power users (which Ubuntu has been targeted at). For developers who constantly need to dive down into the OS, something like Sabayon or Fedora seems to fit better with their endless modularity. Besides, it would be nice to try a non-Debian distribution for a change.
    • chao- 14y ago
      As a power user, I don't really feel I have particular unfilled needs in any Linux environment. Most of what I need, development-wise, I already have. All that requires is a shell and the ability to configure my apt sources. That said, I don't do much OS-level anything. For that, you will probably always need a distro that assumes less about your graphical environment. What I do miss from other OSes/environments is that sense of a tighter integration. I spent many years not missing it, having originally gotten into GNU/Linux by cobbling together my own crummy environment in Gentoo (on which Sabayon is based). It wasn't really until I first tried Windows 7 a few years back that I realized that if I actually wanted to use the latest this-or-that application in a seamless (dare I say enjoyable?) manner I needed to stop clinging to my obscure WMs. And yet, to this day, I'm actually still clinging.
• dfc 14y ago
  Why not Debian?
  • kunai 14y ago
    Debian stable tends to be too stable for my tastes; Fedora is much more bleeding edge. It's just a matter of preference, really.
    • csense 14y ago
      Fedora? Bleeding edge? I've heard that Red Hat is what's holding a lot of people back in the Python world, because their Python version is so ancient.
      • Symmetry 14y ago
        Fedora is bleeding edge, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not.
    • chao- 14y ago
      If it's fresh packages you want, surely you know there's more than just stable. Have you given Sid a try? I've been running it for years on my non-server machines, and I haven't had any more or less problems with it than other bleeding edge distros.
    • colanderman 14y ago
      Debian testing is pretty great. I personally use a mix of testing, unstable, and experimental on my desktop, and a mix of stable and testing on my server.
    • dfc 14y ago
      I have ran unstable for 10+ years. The only problems I have ever had were graphics related and required downgrading to an older version of an X11 library. Debian unstable has never put me in a position where I could have lost data.
  • obviouslygreen 14y ago
• slurgfest 14y ago
  Nothing has actually happened yet.
• rodgerd 14y ago
  Consider OpenSUSE. I've been distro-hopping for a while, and I've ended up delighted how well it works. Fedora is now about as stable as Rawhide used to be.
• stephen_g 14y ago
  I did that ages ago when the Unity mess happened. Fedora is actually really nice, and working perfectly on my machines.