Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Oct 2009 12:07 UTC
Linux I'm in a bit of a pickle here. I have an Atom 330-based tiny computer which I use as my HTPC. It performed its job fine running Windows 7 and Boxee, and over the past few months, it ran Mac OS X Leopard with Plex. Now, however, I want to try Linux as an HTPC operating system, but I kind of ran into a roadblock there with Ubuntu 9.10 - so the question is: what is a good HTPC Linux distribution?
Thread beginning with comment 391980
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by spiderman on Fri 30th Oct 2009 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

It's based on Debian testing.
Canonical releases LTS versions, which are more stable. Other versions are pretty bleeding edge. When Dell chooses Ubuntu for their netbook, they pick a LTS version, because other versions are not as stable and supported by Canonical.
If you want stable software, use Debian stable, or Ubuntu 8.04 LTS.
If you want to try new things and be on the bleeding edge, use Ubuntu 9.10, but don't complain when there are bugs, post them on launchpad instead.

It's the same when you use Fedora instead of Red Hat.

Edited 2009-10-30 15:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you want to try new things and be on the bleeding edge, use Ubuntu 9.10, but don't complain when there are bugs, post them on launchpad instead.


A release is a release. There is no testing warning or whatever on Ubuntu's site. Why are you defending such an epic fail on Ubuntu's end? I mean come on - Intel video chips causing freezes all over the place?

That's unacceptable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


A release is a release. There is no testing warning or whatever on Ubuntu's site. Why are you defending such an epic fail on Ubuntu's end? I mean come on - Intel video chips causing freezes all over the place?

That's unacceptable.

I'm not defending Ubuntu in any way. Ubuntu is based on Debian testing.
Look, if you use Fedora, you know it's a bleeding edge distro and it's a testing ground for new things.
It's your choice to use it, nobody put a gun over your head. There are bugs, yes and we all know it.
Now if you don't like unstable software, use Red Hat and pay for support, or use CentOS, or Debian stable.
There are literally more than 500 distros to choose from. YOU make the choice, according to what YOU want. Now if you want stability, DON'T USE BLEEDING EDGE DISTROS!!! Slackware, Red Hat, Debian (stable), etc... are made just for you! use that and stop whining.
If you still use bleeding edge distro, don't go around saying stupid things like 'linux is buggy', 'Windows is stable', etc... you just chose to use testing software.

Edited 2009-10-30 15:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


That's unacceptable.


Just read what linux "fanboys" just use to say: maybe linux is not for you:

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Reply Parent Score: 0

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I had Debian 6 Testing on my machine for a few weeks. Some of the additional software was great (OpenVAS) and I actually liked KDE4 now that it's had a few point releases since. Ultimately, I ended up dropping the notebook back to Debian 5 Stable though. KDE4 and the additional apps did not justify some of the breakage I was getting with updates. That's not a complaint about Debian, I knowingly ran a testing status distribution. I've since obtained OpenVAS through backports and KDE3 runs lighter on the system so I can wait for Debian 6 to go stable or at least much closer to stable release.

I think the point the previous poster is trying to make is this same thing; when you run a testing distro you have to accept that your using the beta of the next release. When you run an RC or Beta Windows release, you have to accept that it's in development and may break or lack features.

This should not excuse Canonical for so many having issues with such a generic chipset and GPU. It does indicate a potential cause and justify reverting back to an LTS, trying the parent distro Debian or another distro entirely.

(I have to admit I'm a fork snob also; why use a forked distro if the parent distro provides all the same functions and/or more.)

Bottom line; popularity has never indicated the quality of software. Canonical is popular but there are other distros more applicable to given tasks.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Johnny Member since:
2009-08-15

Thom, I agree. That is an epic fail. I'm very surprised that Ubuntu didn't catch that bug during the alpha-beta-rc cycle. As you pointed out, it's not like Intel's integrated chipset is some kind of obscure graphics chipset. How did they miss that bug?

--Johnny

Reply Parent Score: 1