My Review of the Linux/Unix OSes

I have used many Linux/Unix OSes, so I decided to review a few of them, so newcomers to *nix have a easier time deciding. I will add more as I use more.


>>> Ubuntu Linux <<<

UI -
Gnome DE. Very easy to use and it comes with many GUI tools to manage your machine. Nearly all point-and-click for casual users. Verbose bootup hidden with a graphical Ubuntu screen like WIndows. No CLI needed for casual use.

Ease of Use -
Very easy. All works out the box most of the time. Graphical wizard installation and Wubi makes install very simple. Automatic partitioning. Wubi allows installation through WIndows. Grub picks up the other OSs and automatically configures itself 99% of the time. Anything casual can be done through Gnome. Preconfigured with easy going defaults. Easy for Windows users. Experienced users might find it restricting though.

Hardware Support -
Wonderful. Picks up hardware and installs drivers without even asking a lot of the time. Installs closed source drivers like ATI graphic cards. Comes with a hardware testing tool. X11 failed on one of my dual head machines whilst booting of the live CD, indicating that it might be lacking dual head graphic card support. Picks up quite a few WiFi NICs. Overall, very good.

Speed -
Not impressive at all. Slow boot up, Gnome often lags, and it takes a while to do basic things. It's faster than Windows, but compared to other Linux/BSD distros, it seems really slow. It will thrash older hardware, so don't use it on older machines. This is probably caused by Gnome and lots of GUI tools.

Out of Box Security -
Pretty decent. It comes with UFW preinstalled that blocks all ports by default, unless a application tries to establish a connection. All preinstalled programs don't encounter any issues with the firewall, but user installed programs might. Access to root has been blocked, you will need to use Sudo and Su to gain root access. Most GUI tools will just prompt for a password when needed. Assumes the user isn't a security pro. GUI is available for the firewall, just apt-get GUFW.

Updates -
LTS versions are released every two years. People wanting a more robust OS should just upgrade to LTS versions. New versions are released every 6 months. Updates are easy to get - just click a icon in the notification area. There have been many stories of people upgrading and breaking their OS. These stories are quite rare though.

Use as a Seedbox or Server -
No way. The fact that it comes with so many applications and a full fledged Gnome DE installed means that this is too bloated for a server. The Ubuntu Server Edition is pointless, seeing as Debian is probably the same but less bloat.

My recommendations -
It's bloat and GUI will be great for new users, but will simply restrict seasoned users. Power users should use Debian if they want a similar OS to Ubuntu, but without the bloat. As I said before, this OS is NOT suitable for servers/seedboxs. Then again, Ubuntu does seem to have better out-of-box hardware support.


>>> Debian GNU/Linux <<<

UI -
Default install CD comes with Gnome as optional install. A KDE and XFCE disk is also available, but these don't offer the option to select what you want to install (God knows why.). The default install with 'Desktop Environment' is quite bloated, but not as much as Ubuntu. It comes with many GUI tools, but many things are still best done through the CLI on Debian more so than Ubuntu. Install without 'Desktop Enviroment' will give you a CLI interface.

Ease of Use -
Easy, but not quite as easy as Ubuntu. New versions even come with a GUI installer (Type gui at boot.). Install is quite easy, and will automatically partition HDD. Not many difficult questions, even on expert install. The Debian installer really has come a long way. If 'Desktop Environment' was selected, you will get a complete Gnome DE and GDM installed, meaning you will also have a GUI login prompt. Apt-get is really easy, and if you installed 'Desktop Environment' there will be a nice GUI tool to do it for you, like on Ubuntu. Easy to use, with many GUI tools If you don't install 'Desktop Enviroment' then it will be a little more tricky to use, but it should be fine for CLI users.

Speed -
Pretty good. It certainly beats Ubuntu, even with a 'Desktop Environment' install. If you installed it without 'Desktop Environment' it performs pretty good. It runs well on old hardware. Reasonable boot up and doesn't often lag.

Out of Box Security -
Not sure about this one. I forgot to check what packet filter it uses by default. But Debian is known for it's solid kernel and it's stable updates (Not including Debian Sid obviously.). Some tweaking could make this a good server install.

Updates -
As I said above, Debian Stable releases robust updates that won't panic your kernel =) Some of the software on the ports is out of date by two years, which means it is stable, but it won't exactly be cutting edge. Update seemed to go fine for me. You can use apt-get like on Ubuntu.

Use as a Seedbox or Server -
Definitely. It has a solid kernel, stable updates and it is pretty zippy. On a server you shouldn't install X, so don't bother installing 'Desktop Environment' on a server.

My recommendations -
If you want a zippy workstation, don't install 'Desktop Enviroment'. Install it without it and in the CLI 'sudo get apt-get gnome-core gdm xorg xserver' will install essentials of Gnome without unneeded programs.


>>> Arch Linux <<<>

UI -
CLI only on install. You will need to download, install and set up a DE/XWM separately. Modifying configuration files is the only way to do many things. CLI knowledge is a must. A new user jumping into Arch will learn the CLI very quickly. Arch sometimes puts things like configuration files into non-standard places, so configuring it may need some research.

Ease of Use -
Not for someone who wants an easy GUI environment out the box. Installing a DE/XWM will require some knowledge. Not easy to use.

Speed -
One of the fastest Linuxes I have used. Due to the lack of junk and bloat on Arch, it is a very zippy little OS and it will out perform most other popular Linuxes out the box. Even with a GUI installed, it was still very fast. Extremely fast boot up. For those who want it fast, this may be the one.

Out of Box Security -
Being honest, I didn't really do any security testing on Arch. Lack of unneeded features will make it more secure. Arch has had a reputation for including bleeding edge features into the ports and OS, some of which aren't that stable. Do some research into the version you are going to download before downloading, to see if any major bugs have been found.

Updates -
Packman worked very well for me. It was fast, efficient and it didn't seem to dependent. As I said before, Arch is bleeding edge, so expect an unstable package every now and then.

Use as a Seedbox or Server -
No. It's speed may be good for a server, but it's bleeding edge features wont. If you are going to install to a server be prepared to get screwed over by unstable packages.

My recommendations -
As a workstation OS, Arch is perfect. Fast, uncluttered and a fast package system. For servers it may not be stable enough though. This may be the perfect OS for power user's desktops/laptops.


>>> OpenBSD <<<

UI -
CLI only. Despite X can be installed off the disk, it's only a windowing system. No GUI tools, no chrome, no DEs or anything else. Included XWMs are TWM and FVWM, both of which are really only for seasoned *nix users, not n00bs. Configuration files are the only way to configure it, except some really basic Unix shell scripts like 'adduser'. You will need to do your homework if you don't come from a BSD OS, even if you are a Linux pro. Knowing Vi is a must; no GNU editors are included. This will be very difficult for n00bs.

Ease of Use -
Not easy in the slightest. The only way to configure is by modding files using Vi, which most casual Linux users probably haven't touched. However, a skilled *nix power user will find it's simplicity wonderful, with much of it being very logical (From a Unix point of view). Installing X won't give a easy life for n00bs, because the only XWMs included are not suitable for n00bs, and they still rely on the CLI. This OS is *extremely* secure out of the box, so much configuring will have to be done to make it usable for a workstation, as OpenBSD excels at firewalls, routers and secure server usage out the box, not workstations. This configuration process will require a decent Unix knowledge. Although configuring to make it more secure wont be needed.

Speed -
Despite it's known issues with performance, I found it to be one of the fastest OSes I had ever used. So why do some people find it slow, yet others find it very fast? I don't know. How fast it works on your computer is unknown until you test it. I got lucky it seems, OpenBSD is super fast for me. Despite the rumor, OpenBSD *does* have SMP support, but it's pretty limited at the moment. Overall OpenBSD's performance varies wildly. But if the SMP kernel doesn't support your SMP CPU, it truly will crawl.

Out of Box Security -
OpenBSD has only had 2 remote holes in the default install in over 10 years! The security of this OS is absolutely amazing. It makes Debian look as insecure as Win98 in comparison. These guys created OpenSSH, a standard that is used by OSX, Novell, Sun, IBM, Nokia and a whole range of other companies. The most secure version of OpenSSH is the one included with OpenBSD. I have read many reliable stories off renown tech sites, about how OpenBSD systems have survived attacks that no other OSes (Including Solaris and FreeBSD) have. PF is an amazing firewall and it eats IPTables for breakfast. Security is OpenBSD's top priority, and it really shows.

Updates -
As far as updating the OS goes, updating probably won't be required, because it's rare that security bugs are found. It will just keep on running securely, even if it's out of date. Applications are a different story. They have a different package tree for every version. If you want to run software that isn't on the package tree, then being able to install that application will probably not happen, unless you want to build your own port..... OpenBSD isn't compatible in the slightest to be honest.

Use as a Seedbox or Server -
For knowledgeable Unix people, this OS would (IMHO) be the ultimate OS for this use. It's secure out the box, and it doesn't have services that aren't needed. It is minimalistic and it won't contain junk that isn't needed. People who want a GUI server/seedbox will be very disappointed. Ubuntu and Windows Server people will find OpenBSD's way of doing things archaic. If you want a server that just works, OpenBSD isn't for you, unless you know a bit about Unix already.

My recommendations -
If you haven't done your research, OpenBSD can be frustrating to use. Knowing Linux probably won't help you here. If you want a ROCK solid computer, this is the OS to go for. On the other hand, if OpenBSD doesn't support your SMP CPU, it will crawl, so there is no point in using it. It worked on my main PCs, and it hasn't crashed once. ever. It's security is just bliss. No tweaking, because its ultra secure out of the box. OpenBSD has serious flaws and serious pros. If the flaws don't apply to you, feel free to use it. If you are a Windows person, or a cutting edge SMP CPU owner, or a person who is happy with tweaking their OS to make it more secure, don't use OpenBSD. If your CPU is supported, and you like using *nix, and you want a rock solid OS, use it.


That's all for now. I will add a few more later on.