Question

I am entirely new on Linux. This is the first time when I am writing a post on Ubuntu Linux platform. I want to know which Linux flavor is more stable and has wider support community:

Red-Hat, Ubuntu, other..

Answer 1

For my part, I believe Ubuntu has more wider support, at least when it comes to projects, packages, web-wide news etc.

But of course, in the enterprise world, it might be Fedora.

It depends what you are looking for really.

Answer 2

It depends completley on the purpose of the install.

Is it a webserver? Is it a file server? Is it a development machine?

All these factors will come into play when selecting the distro, although if you are new to linux stick with ubuntu

Try this: http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/index.php?firsttime=true

Answer 3

Fedora is basically RHEL-unstable (they frequently switch to new versions of programs before people think that they're ready). Ubuntu is pretty stable within releases but tends to break everything on updates, and they sometimes make bad decisions (like grub2 and kde 4.0). They're both completely usable though. If you want more stability, I'd go with CentOS or Debian-stable.

EDIT: By the way, if you're planning to install Linux for personal use (not a web server), you probably won't be very happy with a "stable" distro. The "stabler" a distro is, the older its software is. Ubuntu tends to be a good compromise between too old and too unstable.

Answer 4

I want to know which Linux flavor is more stable and has wider support community:

The answers probably are:

• More stable: debian (but this is likely to be too much stable: you probably would appreciete more frequent updates and up-to-date software than what debian consider "stable").
• Wider support community: ubuntu (by far: launchpad and ubuntuforums being the two main channels).

Of course these are just two of the gazillion metrics you could use to evaluate what linux distro best suits your needs.

EDIT: As I read in other comments you want to use it as a development machine: an added bonus of ubuntu is that it has plenty of tools available for developers. From devhelp to the brand-new quickly framework. Ubuntu also put a lot of stress on adopting standards and framework, usually dropping more feature-rich software in favour of more integrated ones. This has its own drowbacks (ubiquity, the new IM, looks more like a technology preview than a working piece of software, if comprared to pidgin) but it makes easier to integrate functionality (like an application polling or pushing data to other applications).

Answer 5

Ubuntu is the de-facto standard for private desktop use. In research I believe it is Fedora/Cent OS. Personally I use Archlinux, which is a bleeding edge distro with a rolling release. I also use Arch on my server. So easy to configure and use.

Answer 6

Generally speaking, running the very latest build of any Linux distro is going to be a bit unstable, unless that build is at least a few months old. This gives it some time to mature and for patches to become available.

For myself, I've tried quite a few distros, and the one I'm settling on is openSUSE, mostly for the following reasons:

• Good package manager (zypper)
• Good mix of OSS & Proprietary software (video drivers, Sun JDK, etc.)
• RPM Package format (well supported by 3rd parties due to Red Hat)
• Good, easy to access repos
• A longer release schedule (was 1yr, recently changed to 8mos.)
• Commercial development support from Novell (openSUSE feeds Novell's Suse Enterprise Linux)
• Retail version available with limited commercial support (only 90days of installation support, but the fact that it's offered means (to me) that the product should be stable out of the box)
• Good documentation
• Good user community
• Uses /etc/inittab & real init levels (much easier to manage than some other methods)

The thing with Linux is that every distro brings something new or different to the Linux experience, and only after trying a few (or many) and using them for a while will you be able to really determine which best meets your needs and expectations.

And if none of them do, you can always build your own...

Answer 7

If it's desktop defiantly Ubuntu. Massive community support and user-focused development - what's not to love? If you don't like Ubuntu for some reason the SUSE is a good alternative, particularly if you're European.

As a server things are a bit more complex. CentOS is a good bet as it's basically Red Hat without the official support. However myself I've increasingly been using Ubuntu server, primarily because as I run Ubuntu desktop I don't have to learn a new environment for the server (all Linux distros are slightly different and the quirks are like speedbumps)

Answer 8

In one of your comments you said you want to use this as a development system. (BTW, you may want to edit your original post to include this information.) If you're developing toward a specific target I'd suggest you match up your development and target systems as best as you can. For example, I was once developing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and wanted to set up a development system at home. Work wouldn't pay for an RHEL license for me to use at home, so I used the CentOS version which matched up to the RHEL release we had at work, and I never had any problems when I copied my code from home to work.

Answer 9

It depends on what you have to do with it, have a look at distrowatch

If you'd like to use it for development I would suggest Ubuntu, it has a wide community and most people might already have installed frameworks, languages or whatever you will need.

Answer 10

I've tried several and I would say Ubuntu is. Usually the more popular linux distributions will be more stable and have better support.