DISTROWARS! Which Linux Distribution are you using?

[pusangkalye]

@bloodsucker. You can use Ubuntu. Its a great distro and very user-friendly. It is also fundamentaly very secure because it uses GNU/Linux kernel. Para maliwanagan ka sa issue regarding Ubuntu-Amazon data leaks, it will help if you read more about it here.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-amazon-ads-and-data-leaks

@Gian20. Read mo din yung link. Mejo outdated na yun and I don't know kung applicable pa yung work-arounds, but I'm sure kaya pa ring i-tweak ang settings in the event na di na applicable yung mga inilistang workaround. Its Linux anyways, you can tweak all you want right?

Lastly, I don't think Ubuntu is being used to spy on its users by NSA. I don't believe Ubuntu is compromised.

 

[ryandavid29]

Re: Kali Mint 17

pasali ako guys, linux mint 17 64bit ako.. hmmm..bakit running in software rendering mode ako?without video hardware accelarator?naka install pala sya sa alienware mx11..

 

[r1bnc]

@bloodsucker. You can use Ubuntu. Its a great distro and very user-friendly. It is also fundamentaly very secure because it uses GNU/Linux kernel. Para maliwanagan ka sa issue regarding Ubuntu-Amazon data leaks, it will help if you read more about it here.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-amazon-ads-and-data-leaks

@Gian20. Read mo din yung link. Mejo outdated na yun and I don't know kung applicable pa yung work-arounds, but I'm sure kaya pa ring i-tweak ang settings in the event na di na applicable yung mga inilistang workaround. Its Linux anyways, you can tweak all you want right?

Lastly, I don't think Ubuntu is being used to spy on its users by NSA. I don't believe Ubuntu is compromised.

Other info about Ubuntu and other ubuntu based distros NOT being recommended because of privacy issues
https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/805
https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/334

Eto po pakibasa din po:

@hasufell: Ubuntu is a corporation driven distribution and does not care about the free software or open source community (Greg K-H: “Ubuntu does not give back to the community“ on a kernel talk at google). While that alone is not a bad thing it completes the picture of Ubuntus goals (see bug #1 on ubuntu launchpad).

IMO, over the last few years Canonical has followed the exact same strategy of Microsoft: EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). That has shown in various ways where ubuntu has pushed technologies or created extensions (such as unity). The next step will be things like API war and might already start with the deal they have made with Valve.
Well, of course that is only guessing and I might be completely wrong.

But what is a fact is this: ubuntu has already betrayed it‘s users through their spying features and is clearly not aiming at full transparency and freedom as in free.
Because of this fact people should really think if this will remain the only occurence of nastyness. History has taught us and is telling us again right now that companies with that power and attitude will not stop at such a point, but just become more subtle. Free software for them is merely a utilty to build up to their own goals.

How can you trust someone who has already lied to you? What happened in Ubuntu is a very good reason to never trust them again as a whole, not just disregard a few features they provide. That would be inconsistent for people who appreciate free software and want control over what‘s happening on their computer.

Further: Ubuntu packages are technically not opensource. They are just binary packages, so they cannot be (open)source at the same time. That is a small but important difference. What they do is provide a source tarball along with their binary tarball. Who can tell me now if the source from tarball A matches the compiled binary of tarball B? You would have to decompile and analyze the whole code against the other... and that will be pretty difficult. So why should I install binary packages at all? Well, maybe because I trust the distributor. But we already realized that you cannot trust ubuntu distributors.

Now when we are talking about derivates we are technically talking about ubuntu as well. You cannot distinguish cleanly between them, because they always mirror packages directly from ubuntu, as an example for trisquel:
„Trisquel modifies/adds 156 source packages, 2 are imported from Debian, 4 from other repos“
see http://devel.trisquel.info/gitweb/?...576f24ae7e05292699aead015d3e88906ffe7;hb=HEAD for a list

That in fact means that over 99% of Trisquel is practically Ubuntu. How can I recommend Trisquel now when I already distrust Ubuntu? You say the malicious features have been removed? Well, does Trisquel or you know of all malicious features of ubuntu? No. Well, we could claim that for any distro no? Yes, but they have not betrayed their users yet, so there is still a small reason for trust.

That said... it is simply illogical to trust derivates who just import the majority of packages from ubuntu. While we cannot say „ubuntu distributes malware all over it‘s repository“, we can‘t really say the opposite either, because it already happened once.

If you recommend LMDE (which is purely based on debian) I would really have no objection, so please don‘t think I‘m one of the guys who start distro wars. I am concerned about security and users. There are other distros on your list that I do not like, but I would never claim that archlinux is not trustworthy.

ang ubuntu po ay hindi na FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE , dahil po Company ang Canonical, hindi non-profit org, read nyo nalang po yung ibang issues tungkol sa ubuntu and ubuntu based distros

 

[pusangkalye]

@Gian20
Thanks for the links. Its very informative. Here are my thoughts:

GNU/Linux kernel is fundamentaly secure since the code is open and can be audited by anyone. GNU/Linux kernel is being used by Ubuntu so it can be considered secure. Thats the only lens I used in giving out that statement. Yun ang main thought ko nung nag post ako for Ubuntu. I didn't believe the kernel was tampered with even if Torvalds was reportedly asked to put a backdoor in it by the NSA. Had you provided those links above when you made your point then I could have posted differently.

This is how I understand the discussions on github.

@hasufell uses Gentoo so I can understand why he disliked Ubuntu for its use of binaries which cannot be easily audited. He also distrusts Canonical because of the way it handled the Dash-Amazon issue and considers it a major breach of trust. Those were his opinions on the matter.

I knew for a fact that Canonical is not a non-profit organization long before. If one knew that fact then di na dapat magulat nung inintegrate nila yung Amazon sa Dash. It is a business move to generate profit to sustain the business. Now, is being a for-profit organization (like Canonical) inherently bad sa sphere ng Linux world? Not necessarily. Look at Red Hat Enterprise Linux. What is bad is if a business move was done in bad faith and with the intention to deceive. Amazon-Dash was proven to be leaking data that compromises its users but: Was to leak information intended? Was the leak fixed by Ubuntu already? Was the act done in bad faith? Are there any binaries packaged for Ubuntu that were proven to leak information already?

I like the way how Canonical pushes integration of Linux by way of Ubuntu across all platforms: on the cloud, servers, desktops, and soon mobile (ubuntu touch). Unless ma headline ang Canonical na ginagamit sila ng NSA, then I'll still believe in the company's good faith. I've not lost my faith in them yet. Looking back at what Canonical has done for worldwide Linux adoption, it made Linux accessible for millions of the ordinary Windows users who desperately wanted to escape Microsoft's grasp to have an alternative OS. I think malaking nagawa ng Ubuntu para mag grow ang userbase ng Linux kase yung mga user ng Ubuntu will eventually gain enough knowledge to progress to the "more complex" distros like Gentoo or Arch. I like GregKH and he may be right in saying that Canonical has given back very little to the Linux kernel, pero para sakin, sapat na ang kakayahan ng Ubuntu na makapagconvert ng isang Windows user into a Linux user. They make our numbers grow very fast! Mas marami tayo mas masaya di ba?

Finally, it all boils down to the issue of trust. If you believe Ubuntu is insecure and using it threatens your privacy, then by any means avoid it if you can. One is free to use to Debian Stable, or build one's own Linux from scratch.

 

[r1bnc]

@Gian20
Thanks for the links. Its very informative. Here are my thoughts:

GNU/Linux kernel is fundamentaly secure since the code is open and can be audited by anyone. GNU/Linux kernel is being used by Ubuntu so it can be considered secure. Thats the only lens I used in giving out that statement. Yun ang main thought ko nung nag post ako for Ubuntu. I didn't believe the kernel was tampered with even if Torvalds was reportedly asked to put a backdoor in it by the NSA. Had you provided those links above when you made your point then I could have posted differently.

This is how I understand the discussions on github.

@hasufell uses Gentoo so I can understand why he disliked Ubuntu for its use of binaries which cannot be easily audited. He also distrusts Canonical because of the way it handled the Dash-Amazon issue and considers it a major breach of trust. Those were his opinions on the matter.

I knew for a fact that Canonical is not a non-profit organization long before. If one knew that fact then di na dapat magulat nung inintegrate nila yung Amazon sa Dash. It is a business move to generate profit to sustain the business. Now, is being a for-profit organization (like Canonical) inherently bad sa sphere ng Linux world? Not necessarily. Look at Red Hat Enterprise Linux. What is bad is if a business move was done in bad faith and with the intention to deceive. Amazon-Dash was proven to be leaking data that compromises its users but: Was to leak information intended? Was the leak fixed by Ubuntu already? Was the act done in bad faith? Are there any binaries packaged for Ubuntu that were proven to leak information already?

I like the way how Canonical pushes integration of Linux by way of Ubuntu across all platforms: on the cloud, servers, desktops, and soon mobile (ubuntu touch). Unless ma headline ang Canonical na ginagamit sila ng NSA, then I'll still believe in the company's good faith. I've not lost my faith in them yet. Looking back at what Canonical has done for worldwide Linux adoption, it made Linux accessible for millions of the ordinary Windows users who desperately wanted to escape Microsoft's grasp to have an alternative OS. I think malaking nagawa ng Ubuntu para mag grow ang userbase ng Linux kase yung mga user ng Ubuntu will eventually gain enough knowledge to progress to the "more complex" distros like Gentoo or Arch. I like GregKH and he may be right in saying that Canonical has given back very little to the Linux kernel, pero para sakin, sapat na ang kakayahan ng Ubuntu na makapagconvert ng isang Windows user into a Linux user. They make our numbers grow very fast! Mas marami tayo mas masaya di ba?

Finally, it all boils down to the issue of trust. If you believe Ubuntu is insecure and using it threatens your privacy, then by any means avoid it if you can. One is free to use to Debian Stable, or build one's own Linux from scratch.

Salamat po sa post niyo, hindi ko po dini-discourage ang mga new users na gustong lumipat from Windows to Linux, ang Ubuntu Linux ay isang starting point sa mga bagong Linux users, friendly din ang User Interface nito than other Linux distros (for me), kung sa prvacy naman ang pag-uusapan, na sa inyo na kung gagamitin niyo ito or hindi, hindi naten masasabi kung meron nang backdoor si NSA, dahil halos lahat ay dumadaan sa US, mapa products (PC, tablet, etc.), Internet backbone etc. na sa inyo pa rin ang decisyon kung gagamitin niyo ang Ubuntu at ang iba pang Ubuntu based distro's.

 

[AkosiZhenon21]

Marami-rami narin akong natry na Distro pero Manjaro talaga ang nagustuhan ko. at dahil arch-based ang manjaro laging updated ang mga software, un ang isa sa nagustuhan ko dito.


Isa pa pala, top rolling-release din ang Manjaro. Ibig sabihin pag may bagong version update lang ng update ang OS mo, di mo na kailangang iformat ulit ang pc mo pag may bagong version.

 

[ChiefBoy]

Wala sa poll yung ginagamit ko. I am using Xubuntu 14.04.1 (Xubuntu=xfce+ubuntu.) Pero dati gamit ko Ubuntu kaso kakaasar naman yung Dash ang pangit ng arrangement ng mga apps ko at minsan nag kaka crash pa sya kaya iniwan ko si Ubuntu at nag shift ako sa Xubuntu. Technically speaking Ubuntu din naman sya kaya wala na ako masyadong pinag-aralan. At may bonus pa ang ganda ng menu ng Xubuntu. Naka arrange ng maayos ang mga apps. Simple but 100% useful.

 

[patam5v]

Moved to Elementary OS.
Dabest View attachment 181252

 

[devildevilira]

Other info about Ubuntu and other ubuntu based distros NOT being recommended because of privacy issues
https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/805
https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/334

Eto po pakibasa din po:


ang ubuntu po ay hindi na FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE , dahil po Company ang Canonical, hindi non-profit org, read nyo nalang po yung ibang issues tungkol sa ubuntu and ubuntu based distros

This is a good discussion. But I think something should be clarified.
First, NSA's PRISM Project is yes, a hell of a privacy issue. But whats that for us? And whats the projects target?

If we are a terrorist, an anti-government or a common enemy of the state, then we should all be concerned about this.
Do we have something to hide? IF we don't have any, why should we be bothered?
Its a data collection project... viruses and malwares wont spread on our computers because of this project.
Our computers and laptops wont explode because their collecting our information.
And what the hell will NSA care about our Facebook accounts and social-site credentials?

Now in regards to "security", is Ubuntu secure?
Cannonical, from the very beginning is not a "Free Company". Cannonical is a company that does things to finance Ubuntu.
Ubuntu and canonical are very closely related but are not equally the same. Ubuntu is still free. Ubuntu is still Open Source.
We are reading ideas from persons who (are) could be biased, they are not official statements from any legitimate and
appropriate entities.

Are Ubuntu-based Linux distro secure? Yes.
How come? When youre deriving an OS from another OS, your only using it as a base.
Yes, youll gonna use their repos, but as long as your using open-source softwares, your secure.

Backports? Its very unlikely that backports will gonna exist on open-source projects because sources can be reviewed by anyone.
Backports may exist on Third Party Apps and Enterprise Softwares like Apple(Mac), Android, Opera Browser, Windows OS and Device drivers from
all non-free and (closed source) Companies like Toshiba, Lenovo, or just simply name the brand of your computer.

If someone is really somekind of a security-freak, just don't use a computer or any devices.

If your really concerned about this, use Tails.
But that's not assured to provide Full Security.

besides, the NSA Prism project only pertains to leaking of information on the internet, very much the same as Adwares on different social-sites.

Another point is that, Debians Rolling-release models "Stable", "Testing" and "Unstable" refer to "security" not as "Privacy Violations" or "Malware infested"
kind of thing. But rather, refers to either less bugs, buggy or very buggy. And bugs, are different from viruses. Viruses are created to harm users while
bugs are programming errors.


On brief, please, let us not just let our selves be misled by this.
If we will be taken away by this, then let me tell you, we don't have any choice but to either,
build your own distro using LFS
and then manufacture your own device.

I want to discuss this further, but I don't have much time.
I highly appreciate this discussion opened-up on my thread.

 

[SymbChit]

linuxmint

e2 gamit ko since eto ang popular sa tinuro samin ngayon sa school user friendly and easy to use kumpara sa ibang linux

pero meron din ako debian, peppermint at bayanihan na nka install sa vmware pero di ko pa masyado gamay hehehe

 

[ranzz]

Re: Kali Mint 17

LINUX MINT 17 GAMIT KO

 

[devildevilira]

Re: Kali Mint 17

up...up ....up q lng to. para mksabay.

 

[deomm]

Re: Kali Mint 17

Debian sid + mate gamit ko sa laptop. Ubuntu 14.04 linagay ko sa laptop ng ermat at erpat ko. Opensuse 13.1 + mate sa desktop ko. Sa mga na miss ang ubuntu gnome 2, may ubuntu mate remix project nga pala. hehehe https://ubuntu-mate.org/


my vote goes to Opensuse. and debian hehehehe

 

[Argenth]

Re: Kali Mint 17

Gusto ko i try ung Linux Mint? 1st time user ano maganda gamitin ung MATE or Cinnamon?

 

[pusangkalye]

Re: Kali Mint 17

Well, you can try both. Ang alam ko sa Mint meron silang Live CD iso para matest mo without the need to install it. Meron din dedicated thread regarding Mint.

 

[urimon]

Re: Kali Mint 17

Gentoo/Funtoo

Powerful Package Manager which is Portage, bakit powerful? USE flags, controlled mo yung pag cocompile ng mga software mo, for example ayaw ko sa gtk edi aayusin ko lang yung make.conf ko na kasama sa portage, custom kernel development, super minimal rolling distribution, di nagbbreak everytime mag Full System Update unlike some other 'bleeding edge' distros *cough Arch cough*.

Ang standby memory consumption ko 49mb, once na mag start na ko mag dev 54mb na, plus browser 254+mb na.

WM: Ratpoison
Text Editor: ViM with Mods and Atom IO
Browser: Nightly Firefox

 

[third143]

Re: Kali Mint 17

Gusto ko i try ung Linux Mint? 1st time user ano maganda gamitin ung MATE or Cinnamon?

Cinnamon is better than MATE. Pero mas magaan nga lang ang MATE kompara sa CINNAMON.

Linux Mint 17 Quina:

 

[pusangkalye]

Re: Kali Mint 17

Gentoo/Funtoo...di nagbbreak everytime mag Full System Update unlike some other 'bleeding edge' distros *cough Arch cough*....

Good for you to choose Gentoo/Funtoo. Ika nga sa ingles, "whatever floats your boat." Gentoo/Funtoo floats yours while Arch floats mine. I've a lot of respect for Gentoo. It is the one behemoth of a Linux distro that I still have to discover. I won't say anything against it just because you "coughed Arch". Pero tutal nagco-compare narin naman tayo, I'll direct you nalang sa the ever super reliable Archwiki which made a comparison between the two here.

For redundancy's sake, eto yung makikita sa link na iyan,

Gentoo Linux

• Both Arch Linux and Gentoo Linux are rolling release systems, making packages available to the distribution a short time after they are released upstream.
• The Gentoo packages and base system are built directly from source code according to user-specified USE flags. Arch provides a ports-like system for building packages from source, though the Arch base system is designed to be installed as pre-built i686/x86_64 binary. This generally makes Arch quicker to build and update, and allows Gentoo to be more systemically customizable.
• Arch supports i686 and x86_64 while Gentoo officially supports x86, x86_64, PPC, SPARC, Alpha, ARM, MIPS, HP/PA, S/390, sh, and Itanium architectures.
• Gentoo's official package and system management tools tend to be rather more complex and "powerful" than those provided by Arch, and certain features which are at the very heart of Gentoo (USE flags, SLOTs, etc.) don't have any direct Arch Linux equivalent. Some of that is due to the fact that Arch is primarily a binary distro, but differences in design philosophy also play a big role, with Arch taking a more principled stance in favor of architectural simplicity and avoiding over-engineering. (emphases are mine)
• Because both the Gentoo and Arch installations only include a base system, both are considered to be highly customizable. Gentoo users will generally feel quite comfortable with most aspects of Arch.

About breakages. You implied about frequent breakages happening in Archlinux during a full system update. The Archwiki FAQ has a statement on that as well.

Is Arch Linux a stable distribution? Will I get frequent breakage?

The short answer is: It is largely as stable as you make it.

You assemble your own Arch system, atop the simple base environment, and you control system upgrades. Obviously, a larger, more complicated system incorporating multitudes of customized packages, and a plethora of toolkits and desktop environments would be more likely to experience configuration problems due to upstream changes than a slimmer, more simple system would. Arch is targeted at capable, proactive users. General UNIX competence and good system maintenance and upgrade practices also play a large role in system stability. Also recall that Arch packages are predominantly unpatched, so most application problems are inherently upstream.

Therefore, it is the user who is ultimately responsible for the stability of his own rolling release system. The user decides when to upgrade, and merges necessary changes when required. If the user reaches out to the community for help, it is often provided in a timely manner. The difference between Arch and other distributions in this regard is that Arch is truly a 'do-it-yourself' distribution; complaints of breakage are misguided and unproductive, since upstream changes are not the responsibility of Arch devs.

For the larger audience who may want to know more about Arch, read on lang po.

Why would I want to use Arch?

If, after reading about the The Arch Way philosophy, you wish to embrace the 'do-it-yourself' approach and require or desire a simple, elegant, highly customizable, bleeding edge, general purpose GNU/Linux distribution, you may like Arch.

Why would I not want to use Arch?

You may not want to use Arch, if:

• after reading The Arch Way, you disagree with the philosophy.
• you do not have the ability/time/desire for a 'do-it-yourself' GNU/Linux distribution.
• you require support for an architecture other than x86_64 or i686.
• you take a strong stand on using a distribution which only provides free software as defined by GNU.
• you believe an operating system should configure itself, run out of the box, and include a complete default set of software and desktop environment on the installation media.
• you do not want a bleeding edge, rolling release GNU/Linux distribution.
• you are happy with your current OS.
• you want an OS that targets a different userbase

.

 

[lianne_john07]

Re: Kali Mint 17

Solid Ubuntu user here. From Gutsy Gibbon to Trusty Thar. Puro LTS din pala yung mga ginagamit ko. Pero sinusubukan ko yung LFS (Linux from Scratch) ngayun, install linux from source.

 

[devildevilira]

Re: Kali Mint 17

Solid Ubuntu user here. From Gutsy Gibbon to Trusty Thar. Puro LTS din pala yung mga ginagamit ko. Pero sinusubukan ko yung LFS (Linux from Scratch) ngayun, install linux from source.

LFS? Nice for you. Thats a good way to learn. Im also on LFS.