Whats the best alternative to Ubuntu now that they went and destroyed it with the unity ****? I use it almost only for development, primarily C++. need Qt creator to work.

Ah... apologies... I just had a look at the AMIs and it looks like win7 insnt available. So scrap that. Looks like VirtualBox might be your best option.

If you really want to learn about how linux works, then ArchLinux is very popular at the moment. Its not as easy to setup as ubuntu, but the idea behind it is that you only get what you need, and the system is much less bloated than ubuntu where you often get little choice as to whats installed.

Or... http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

never heard of archlinux but there's no reason to abandon package management a la linuxfromscratch just because you want less bloat.

if you're familiar with ubuntu, then just install vanilla debian. start with the minimum install then 'apt-get install' until you have everything you want.

btw there's something fairly simple you can do to fix interactions between qt and the ubuntu desktop environment, but i don't remember what it is. maybe it's just "turn off unity"?

I didn't like Ubuntu when I tried it. My computer will be dual-boot Win7 and Arch.

I still use the older versions of it, but the new Unity interface is lololol

Kubuntu obviously. far superior

Another option is to install Gnome on top of Ubuntu yourself. From what I've read, the new Gnome is ruffling some feathers too, but it is an option.

Thanks for the input!

Ive actually already done that and like you say the new gnome isn't great either.

I tried Kubuntu a few years ago and didnt like it, but maybe it got better. I think my brother uses Arch. He likes it when its scaled down to the bone. Will have a look at it

Anyone try linux mint?

Mvh
Inga

Archlinux is pretty big atm, and has an excellent package manager (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman). One of the big advantages of the system is that there are continuous updates, rather than milestone system updates. This makes for a much more flowing operating system where you are always up to date with the latest patches.

The problem with ubuntu is that its stayed so far from the core linux environment that it becomes very difficult to install any custom software that is not available for ubuntu by default.

You may want to try straight up Debian or even Xubuntu. Xfce has come a long way. I really like it.

sorry, i've been tracking debian unstable since 2002: what is a milestone system update?

By a milestone system update, I mean ubtuntu moving from Maverick to Natty. Newer versions of packages are available on Natty than those available on Maverick, and for Maverick users, the only way to get the latest major versions of some packages (through standard package management channels), is to upgrade to Natty.

Archlinux has no 'major' versions. Individual packages are continuously updated, even when major versions become available. This has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage being that you always have the latest versions of packages, and you dont need to spend hours updating your system. The disadvantage being that conflicts can occasionally occur between packages.

yeah my point is that debian has been doing this for >10 years now via their "unstable" distribution.

but that's ok: there's always some project to come along and "re-invent" technology (e.g. remember when "the cloud" was just "cheap servers with fail-over"?).

eta: having read the pacman wiki page you linked, i think every modern package manager does all those things today. hell, solaris pkg-get can do all that. debian apt-get has been doing it since users of rpm-based linuxes were stuck hunting for dependencies on rpmfind.

not hating on arch, btw, just being pedantic about history. carry on!

I havent used debian myself so wasnt aware that they already did this.

My gribe with ubuntu is that I used to really like it early on (Dapper Drake FTW!) but I really dont like the way it is going. I understand why they are going the way they are... it makes commercial sense, but unfortunately it means ubuntu is no longer for me.

Arch has a lot of buzz about it at the moment, hence why I became interested in it... I wasnt aware that debian was similar... tho I am not too keen on using unstable channels (been burned by this before).

FWIW, I know debian has been around for a long time (long before I knew what linux was) and it is most likely a more stable system than arch (unless you use the unstable channels ), but arch has that 'new toy' element to it atm.

Is PHP relevant? I posted something on another forum about learning PHP and was told,

https://www.facebook.com/home.php

Lol... that is certainly not true.

Although PHP might no longer be in its hayday, its is still used widely across the internet, and will be for many years to come. http://www.google.com/trends?q=php%2...ate=all&sort=0

Ha! touche.

Something-something erlang

ooh baby functional programming

just you wait man. F# will be all over job ads in 5 years

ETA: i think facebook chat and similar functions are in erlang, i can't remember which

also

http://wordpress.org/

most popular blog software out there

written in php/mysql

i mean the history of PHP is very dumb and has been littered with total garbage. i say this as a PHP "developer." but they have taken great strides in PHP 5.x (5.3.x specifically) to make it object-oriented (it wasn't in PHP4 despite what anyone tells you) and more of a "real" programming language without sacrificing the hackiness of it.

at the end of the day it's a scripting language that is pretty slow (though not much slower than ruby or python, the two "preferred" languages over PHP) but easy to pick up and get going right away. and developer productivity trumps everything for 95%+ of projects, so there's really nothing wrong with that.

the big problem is that since it's weakly typed (and script-based), you can write some seriously heinous ****. while i've seen plenty of terrible C/Java code, that code at least has to adhere to a set of standards that are completely not present in PHP.

so if you want to be a "developer," PHP is probably not the best language to start with. but if you want to make things (which is what I do), PHP ain't too bad.

Ye... the time it takes from learning your first line of PHP to actually building something is pretty short compared to other languages.

Sounds good to me. I've been learning some PHP because I've set out to make a website with Drupal, which uses PHP. I would like to be able to tweak and make my own modules for it if I can't find what I am looking for.

It takes a long time for a programming language to not be relevant after it's been #1 somewhere. It's like the People Magazine sexiest man in the world award. The winners are still considered attractive 10, 15 years later.

Most work is legacy work. Very little is done at the leading edge.

Now what tech should you learn right now, projecting demand forward? meh, it depends. Learn what seems useful to you, at least then you can use it. I don't suggest guessing where the market is going.

What tech should you use (say as a company taking on a project)? I'd say whatever was leading edge 2-4 years ago is a good rule of thumb.