Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of Linux distributions/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Spread sheet / downloadable version of Comparison

I like the idea of tables to compare versions (and dont know enough to judge the adequacy of info here but assume it's descent) It would be nice to be able to compress the info by showing only selected distros. Or sorting on a given column... Any chance of doing this or having a way to download to a spreadsheet easily? Fholson 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. You can't do that in wikipedia's markup. Perhaps someone could make and upload a flash app (or something) and make a bot that would automatically synchronize the code to this page and upload it. That would probably take a while to get approval for something like that. You can upload SXC files which could be downloaded fairly easily.Mike92591 20:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Have been thinking about this for months, would indeed be lovely. Is there any way we can regularly check to see how this develops or whether this idea is being worked on at all?
Thanks in advance for your time! Flex Flint 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
By my knowledge it isn't. Ask around and see if someone will do it.Mike92591 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't something appropriate for Wikipedia to do. If you want it, write a script that grabs the page and converts it into whatever form you need. -- 71.102.194.130 07:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Note that the table columns now support sorting; see Help:Sorting. Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly appreciate a nice little button saying "Download in spreadsheet". It could be a comma-separated ASCII, or a multitude of formats. Anyhow, the good people who know programing, please oblige! ;-) --Cryout (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes column

The most important column this table needs is notes, additional details, or something. Just anything to describe it from others besides it's base distro. Key features.. You get the idea.. InsayneWrapper (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardware requirements section

I'm moving here the Hardware requirements section which was added in the last months to the article. This table is not that large currently, but I'd expect it to become as large as other tables if it was kept in the article, growing in rows and columns. The current columns only cover part of the hardware requirements and recommendations seen in modern OS-es. The columns don't tell what devices are supported or not, in particular. Furthermore, preferring "recommended" figures to required ones without indicating if the figures given are required or recommended makes the figures largely useless. At least the 2 would be needed for something significant. Furthermore, if we take for example the RAM requirements, this can vary for Debian from 20 MB to 512 MB, according to the installation guide, depending on performance expectations, usage and CPU architecture. This range is almost as wide as the range of required RAM of current entries (16-512). It's possible to give several figures for each use case, but this implies a large number of entries for each distribution, probably over 10 for Debian. Finally, the "recommended" figures largely depend on each vendor's standards, which makes the comparison of such figures again poorly significant. In summary, a best effort for this section would require a lot of data / space, would require a good amount of maintainance, would be quite subjective and would only have limited significance. I do not think such a section is viable. --Chealer (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that subjectivity is a big problem for this table but, I think it could be viable with some work. Mike92591 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardware requirements

This table lists the hardware requirements of each distribution, as given by the vendor or other authoritative sources. "Recommended" figures are presented in preference to "required" figures, when both are given.

Processor speed Memory size (MB) Disk space for installation
Damn Small Linux[1] 486-class 16 50 MB
Debian[2] 1 GHz 512 5 GB
Fedora[3] 400 MHz 512 5 GB
Gentoo Linux[4] 486-class 64 1.5 GB
Knoppix[5] 486-class 128 —[6]
Mandriva Linux[7] 1 GHz 512 4 GB
MEPIS[8] Un­known 128 4 GB
openSUSE[9] Un­known 256 500 MB
Pardus[10] 1.2 GHz 512 10 GB
PCLinuxOS[11] 1 GHz 512 4 GB
Puppy Linux[12] Pentium 166MMX 128 256 MB
Ubuntu Linux (alternate install CD) [13] 1GHz 256 3 GB
sidux[14][15] i686, AMD64 192 3 GB
Slackware[16] 486-class 32 3.5 GB
  1. ^ DSL information
  2. ^ 3.4. Meeting Minimum Hardware Requirements
  3. ^ [1]
  4. ^ Gentoo Linux Documentation - Choosing the Right Installation Medium
  5. ^ http://www.knoppix.com/
  6. ^ Knoppix is only available as a live distribution.
  7. ^ Mandriva Linux One | Mandriva
  8. ^ System Hardware | MEPIS
  9. ^ | openSUSE
  10. ^ :: Pardus :: TÜBİTAK/UEKAE ::
  11. ^ PCLinuxOS Wiki: Faqs
  12. ^ MinReq | Puppy Linux
  13. ^ | Ubuntu Desktop Edition
  14. ^ http://sidux.com/
  15. ^ Install size is additionally listed as 0 because sidux is also usable as a live distribution.
  16. ^ The Slackware Linux Project: Installation Help

Default desktop environments

It does not make sense to list some distros that support all the desktop environments like "None", but list distros that have sub-distros (Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Xubuntu) as one entry with "KDE, Gnome, XFCE". A distro should not be punished on the list for not having sub-distros. Just because Arch Linux doesn't have Karch Linux, Garch Linux and Xarch Linux, does not mean that it deserves "None" instead of "KDE, GNOME, XFCE etc" as the default desktop environment entry. --Trontonic (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition(s)

Knoppix comes from Debian. If the table is going to identify the name of an ancestor build, there needs to be a definition for it. Online docs for Knoppix refer to Debian. Klaus Knopper, author of Knoppix, wrote a loop driver that made the Live CD (Knoppix) possible. There is no question, in my opinion, that this article needs to address this point. None-the-less, Knoppix is not an origin, even though it is a parent. Kernel.package (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

suse linux recursion

openSUSE and SUSE Linux Enterprise are based on "SUSE Linux" which is not noted in the table. And also doesn't seem to be a distribution but an umbrella term for several distributions. So, on which distribution are SuSe derivatives based? --92.37.121.103 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge. SUSE Linux was renamed to openSUSE; the enterprise offerings retained their "SUSE Linux" name, and are still based upon what is now known as openSUSE. It is pretty much like the Fedora↔RHEL scheme, where the enterprise version is a branch of the community version. —j.eng (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

Knowing the approximate number of users or downloads, would be very interesting for comparison purposes. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Discontinued distros

It would be useful to show which distros have been discontinued, perhaps even to list them separately. Greenman (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Red and unlinked distros

There are quite a few redlinked and unlinked distros included in the list. As per WP:WTAF, WP:SAL etc, I'll start to remove these shortly. Greenman (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GUIs?

It might be useful to tack on another column to the basic information indicating the distribution's main GUI. Jack SchledererTalk Adds 01:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Never mind. Jack SchledererTalk Adds 01:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not alphabetical

The lists here are not alphabetical. I'm not sure of a way to quickly fix it without several hours of work. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Including the GNU/Linux distro timeline chart?

A good supplement for the first table would be the GNU/Linux distro timeline located at http://futurist.se/gldt/. This is the best summary of information about the history of all GNU/Linux distributions. And it is released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Could we add the SVG version? If so, as the page is full of full screen tables would this be better as part of an Infobox section rather than a simple Image? True bugman (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible inconsistency in the number of packages in Debian (Sid) and Sidux

I thought that all packages of Debian Sid were available in Sidux (from their website: "sidux aims to be 100% compatible with Debian sid"). However the number of Sidux packages reported in the article (23 000) is much lower than the number of Debian Sid packages (39 000). Maybe some figures have not been properly updated ? 130.66.64.1 (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Peppermint OS[2]

PeppermintOS and PeppermintICE are two variants based on Linux Mint (which is based on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian). It's niche is to create a web-centric desktop platform much like Google Chrome OS but with desktop features familiar to the typical desktop experience. Unlike Chrome OS (which is derived from Ubuntu) Peppermint is based on the LXDE desktop environment to be as fast and lightweight as possible.

PeppermintOS uses Mozilla Prism technology to create SSB (Site Specific Browsers) that launch common webapps (like facebook, etc...) in a 'native' web application window.

PeppermintICE is the same as except, instead of using Mozilla Prism to create SSBs, Ice uses (Google) Chromium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanplaice (talk • contribs) 05:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Modern Distro Only Option

Many people coming to the page are only interested in comparing current distros to decide which to use. However, because all of the comparison tables are multiple screens long and compare every distro and fork that has existed, they find the page to be mostly useless. We need a way to show only current information for those who want it, in order to increase utility. A method for allowing the viewer to sort information and suppress what they don't need would also be good.

This is a general comment applicable to all comparison articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.206.28 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Date format

When it comes to machines versus humans, I always side with the humans. It there a reason that the dates are formatted yyyy-MM-dd? The use of "?" for unknown information is generally discouraged in the WP:MOS. The MOS does allow for months to be abbreviated where space is precious. What I would like to do is reformat, for example "2003-11-?" to "Nov 2003". --Charles Gaudette 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always found date formats that only use numbers(MM-dd-yyyy,yyyy-MM-dd,dd-MM-yyyy) easier than normal notation of dates but, if it's easier for most then we should use it.Mike92591 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
First you "figured", then you have "always found" ... in both cases displaying terrible judgment. MM-dd-yyyy and dd-MM-yyyy are, quite obviously, ambiguous, especially in a document that is read and edited by an international community. That's why the style guide says "Do not use numbers to express a month, except in ISO 8601 format" (and even ISO 8601 dates "should generally not be used in normal prose".) -- 71.102.194.130 05:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"displaying terrible judgment"!? are you a school teacher? Mike may well have "display[ed] terrible judgement", but you (71.102.194.130) have displayed terrible irrelevance. Also, a simple way to resolve the issue is to put the format in the column heading (eg "dd/mm/yyyy"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


yyyy-MM-dd is referred to as an "International Format". My employer uses the format for this reason. Kernel.package (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, "referred to". By whom? Everybody who actually works in an international environment spells out months with three letters. Because 2009-08-07 may or may not refer to August. Or July. But 2009-Aug-07 is completely unambiguous no matter what order you choose: Aug-07-2009, 07-Aug-2009, heck, if you feel like it you could do Aug-2009-07 and after a short hesitation every human being would parse it correctly. 137.78.180.239 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
yyyy-mm-dd is not just 'referred to', it IS the ISO standard date format. See [3]. Nowhere in the world does 2009-08-07 refer to July (see also Date format). It also happens to sort correctly, so changing it to anything else (unless you fix the templates - there are ways to do this), will break the date sorting on the table. Greenman (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

idea for raid enabled installer

hi, i think it would be nice to have a table that list what linux distro can be installed on software raid device and which not. for example i know that ubuntu can create and be installed on software raid while linux mint debian edition not yet. anyone that have a good overall distro knowledge can start to post a list of distro with software raid support during installation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nackstein (talk • contribs) 08:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many distributions?

This page has tons of distributions; so many that they obscure the information that average Wikipedia viewers are looking for.

I don't really see a way to get rid of active distributions that only one or two viewers of this article actually care about, but at least we should consider getting rid of dead distributions. (distrowatch says that annvix is discontinued, at least).

Wish there was a way to query the tables so that only distro's which appear on the distrowatch.com top 50 (or some other measure of popularity / relevance-to-lots-of-people) would show. Julianbrelsford (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Speed in benckmarks!

There are NO benchmark comparison (!).

The speed gains with a distribution is encyclopedic issue, and it is importantant for undertand Gentoo and similar "to compile" distributions, see 

http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7574/1/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.103.21.193 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's Google Chrome/Chromium OS?

I noticed that Google Chrome OS only gets one mention, in the General table. I know it's only been released to consumers for three months, but we should start adding it in to the other sections, too.

Also, Chromium OS, the open source version of Google Chrome OS, receives no mentions. That should change as well. JobiWan144 (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Architecture Table Headings

In the first column of architectures, it has IA-32 as the top label and x86 as the bottom label. Sure they're the same thing, but it's a tad confusing. 131.217.6.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Linux XP?

Maybe this distro should be added to the comparison? Anonymous 19:05, 13th May 2007 (GMT)

What's stopping you? -- 71.102.194.130 05:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a Linux XP? Isn't that called Ylmf_OS, not Linux XP? Red (Haspop) 18:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haspop (talk • contribs)

No Angstrom/Open Zaurus?

I know Open Zaurus is dead, but Angstrom, it's successor is alive and well on several small platforms, it needs a mention... Georgekwatson (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Kernel Version

I can't believe the kernel versions for the distributions are not listed on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.83.96 (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Tiny Core Linux - Approximate number of packages is very high

Approximate number of packages of Tiny Core Linux increased with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Linux_distributions&diff=prev&oldid=491132305

Could someone bring something to backup that claim? I'm just interested. I would really be happy if this could be proven legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.201.162 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OpenWRT removed from the list?

@David Hedlund: Hm, why was OpenWRT replaced with LibreWRT? What's wrong with OpenWRT so it no longer qualifies as a Linux distribution? Please advise. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I added it back, both distros are now listed. Thanks. --David Hedlund (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Archlinux live CD

Hi all. According to this page, there is an Archlinux live cd, but there is no such CD/DVD. There are some independent projects, and some of them aren't even working. Of course, in order to install the system (via cd/dvd or usb) you'll have to boot some kind of live cd which will tak you to a prompt where you'll have to type all commands for an installation, without any graphical interface. I didn't change it because I wasn't sure wether this can be regarded as a live cd ! There is also a tutorial explaining howto build one yourself.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Building_a_Live_CD

All the best,

Dexxie (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The Arch installation medium, however simplistic it may be, is a bootable disk image and a full live CD when you burn it on a CD. It doesn't need to have a graphical interface to be called "live". "Live" just means it can be run without installing.

Supported CPU architecture: Merging Loongson with MIPS

Why is there a separate column for Loongson? It is just a little-endian implementation of the MIPS ISA. We don't have distinct columns for AMD's and Intel's x86 micro-architectures, because they implement the same instruction set and the same software is native to both of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.219.104 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Endorsed by FSF?

The page List of Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation redirects to this page, but there is no information about such endorsements here. What's up with that? Dylan Thurston (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

All of that text was recently removed without explanation - I've restored it. Greenman (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It happened again, and I restored it again; however, the user edited in good faith, and problems like this are unavoidable with big tables anyway. I posted a message on their talk page. --AVRS (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional information in table - e.g. lightweight?

KNOWING that Arch Linux runs on tiny devices (e.g. PogoPlug), and that XUbuntu is a lightweight version of Ubuntu, I was surprised to find the table did not indicate this kind of very useful -- in selecting a distribution -- information. WardXmodem (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

from X-LFS-2010 (just added). I total agree. There is no "room" for new or other distributions. And the feature chart is simply bereft of any meaning to todays people. Child installable y/n? Distro agnostic y/n? RasperyPi Android maker y/n? Ebeddable y/n? Telephone company exchange compatible y/n? 

Set top box provider y/n?

Sorting the table "Package Management and Installation"

When I order the table "Package Management and Installation" by the column "Approximate number of pre-compiled packages", the sorting is alphabetical, not numeric. Thus, here are the first seven entries, in the order they appear: 875 8300 8280 8000 80 610 6000

It would be nice to sort numerically.

Other than that, this whole page has lots of wonderful information. Thank you.

The sorting issue appears to have been fixed. Anjefu (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Comparison of Linux distributions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Comparison of Linux distributions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Translations

I noticed that as the page is displayed, the column "Cost" displays the cost as "gratis" instead of "free," even though I am using the English site. I looked at the editor, and the visual editor suggests that it was automatically translated from "free." The source lists the entries as: 2 opening curly braces, Free, pipe, Gratis, 2 closing curly braces.

I haven't edited much on Wikipedia, but this is the first time I've ever seen something like this and it puzzled me.

I think "gratis" is also an english word. Not sure why it is used instead of "free." BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
"gratis" avoids ambiguity of "free" with regard to software. See: Free software and Gratis versus libre Nmcapaz (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_Linux_distributions/Archive_4&oldid=1027339123"