I used Ubuntu once. I've been using RH 7->9 and FC 1->4 and I have to admit Ubuntu is a pretty sweet setup. I may have to switch over.

I just did a short round of testing.  I tried Open Suse after it latest release and it was OK.  I guess I am spoiled by Debian but it didn't thrill me.  But then I didn't try the new Xgl desktop.

I tried to install the new Kubuntu but it failed on the install.  Odd the live DVD worked fine but it stopped on the install.

I then fell back to Kanotix.  Kanotix is based upon on Knoppix but it is meant to do a hard drive install.  When the install is done you have a standard Debian Sid (unstable) install.  I have had a couple of times in the last year that Sid broke my install but that is why it is called unstable.  That is why I went looking for a more stable distro that I liked.  No one has more packages that are more up to date than Debian unstable.  I guess I will have to live with things breaking for a day or two to get to play with the latest toys.

thanks for the help man.  i'm psyched to finally check it out.

You may all now call me "nerd" "geek" or some other applicable term.
I use Gentoo. Gentoo requires you to build your own kernel from source before you can even get a bootable system. There is no install tool at all. Just a help document. But it's optimized. REALLY optimized. I'm running windows programs and games via wine and cedega that run FASTER than on the same hardware on Windows. w00t.
I am a geek. And I like it.

Just out of curiosity, what are the compatibility issues (if any) between all these distros?

Amen on the Gentoo.  I tried Ubuntu a while ago, but had tons of hardware problems.  I switched to Suse 9.3 for a long time, and I liked it.  I tried out Gentoo on a whim, in part because I thought the installation would be a great learning tool.  Now, it is really time consuming to install and configure, but the documentation is great and since I've started using it I can't see myself going to anything else.  I love the portage package management system for its ease of use and the access to bleeding edge software.  I also love how easy it is to optimize and adjust my system and the installation teaches you all about it.  Everything runs so fast and smooth.

Obviously not a great distro when you're just starting out, but I'm really glad I switched to it after I had gotten my feet wet.

I've been working on my Fedora 5 install for a while on my desktop.  I've never used it much because I use wireless for my networking and that, to say the least, is a little rough on some cards at the moment.  But I fight on in this battle as you can probably tell from the time at which this message was posted. 

PCLinuxOS

Well - I'm hosting this forum and it's runing on Fedora Core 4. I can't say Fedora is the best but no matter what I need to run there's a fedora version of it. And I like being closer to the bleeding edge.

I have been using RedHat stuff since '98. I have dabbled in Slackware, SuSe and Ubuntu, but I always come back to The Hat. Right now it's Fedora 5.

A lot of the dependency stuff has been taken care of with the included software installer and/or the optional Yumex.

I used a handy online install guide to get all the stuff working that Fedora doesn't normally include.

English
All matches
Intel compatible
Distributions matched: 294

Rhetorical question? Anybody got a link to a site that provides comparisons of different distros? (Not lazy or Google illiterate, just figure standing on the shoulders of giants a couple of seconds will spare substantial guesswork).

Ideally, I'd dig having a dual-boot Windows/Linux setup, for the purpose of observing an apache sandbox in it's natural environment. As it stands, I'm using A2triad, which is a nice WAMP sandbox that requires the brains of a caterpillar to install. I use it for a CMS I work on quite a bit, Drupal.

But I'm also gearing up to install the Vista beta, as well, so I figure while I'm at it, I may as well take another stab at setting up a Linux partition and throw that on my laptop (Linux, not Vista). I had Red Hat for a short while, which I promptly dumped again when it became a commercial product. As infantile a reaction as it seems in hindsight, at the time, it just seemed antithetical to everything I'd come to expect.

Then again, if I had to support Linux for the typical user, I'd want to get paid, too...

http://distrowatch.com/ has a lot of usefull info on Linux distros.

The biggest differences between any distro's are:
package types (deb, rpm, source, etc...)
package managers (portage, apt, yast, etc...)
conf names and location (allthough they are starting to standardize this, was much worse in the old days)
each distro has their own set of wizards and managers or lack of 

Sure there are a few other differences, but these are main areas that most users love or hate about a distro...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
For those cutting their teeth on Linux try Ubuntu. After you install Ubuntu install Automatix... Automatix will install just about everything you will need to have an enjoyable Linux experience with very little hassle...

Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/
Automatix: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=177646
Nice Ubuntu wiki: http://easylinux.info/wiki/Ubuntu_dapper

I'd say you should try one of the LiveCD distros, so you can try it out without the risk of breaking your system (you can just reboot, and everything will be good as new ). My personal favorite LiveCD is Knoppix

Thanks, Dar -- this is EXACTLY what I had in mind. Ordinarily I avoid popularity contests, but with this sort of thing they're very convenient. Provides a list of things to check out and in what order. This is not the only site where I've heard Ubuntu over and over again (which causes me to hear jungle drums pounding and expect Peter Gabriel to being singing about the washing machines of Pittsburg). Or maybe its the drugs. Regardless, a great deal is apparent just from their site; I found myself looking at Ubuntu the other day.

As far as configs go, I was a citadel sysop back in the day, and after going from a Mac to a PC and editing a bunch of text files for a BBS program ported over from unix, THAT actually sounds fairly simple.

I also remember spending an entire afternoon trying to figure out how to mount My Documents so that I could get at my files under Windows. I have no idea what made it so difficult for me to locate such a simple bit of information (and no, this is not a complaint, its a "boy, did I feel stupid" annecdote). I'm definately a little surprised by the proliferation of different distributions; damnsmall makes sense, certainly, and then there are the ones that have been around long enough that I recognize their names even having gone no where near them... But mostly its that I've been running WAMP in XP, which is kludgy to begin with and I suspect takes a performance hit every time it wakes up and realizes being a win32 application wasn't just a bad dream. So I may as well throw Linux on the partition I've got A2T on and see if I can find occasion to make some distinction between Gnome and KDE and get around in bsh without having to have my hosting service provide me with ssh. Etc. etc. etc.

There's no real excuse for me NOT to understand and be able to make use of this stuff, though. I think its just that dread of starting up the beginning of the curve, because it always starts out vertical.

i use ubuntu.  Not because it's the best, easiest, or most user-friendly, but because it was the first one my linux buddy gave me -- and after figuring out how everything works in that one, i haven't found another one (yet) that sets up as easily (for me) as that one does.