Best "desktop" Linux Distro for Biz?

Mize

3dfx Fan
Legend
I just finished bringing a new snazzy ERP system up at the company and it supports linux clients. This means I can run it + OpenOffice + Evolution for a complete "office worker" workstation. The question is which distro for the best desktop?

The candidates are:
SuSE Enterprise Desktop 10.x ($50/year supported)
OpenSuSE (free)
Xandros ($80 ish - though I almost prefer openoffice to staroffice that comes with Xandros)
Linspire ($50 ish)

Thoughts?

Edit: downloading ubuntu now :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SuSE is probably the best choice because of the support, although I think you can also get support for Ubuntu as well. Try both (one is RPM based, one is dpkg based), see what you prefer.
 
Try Mandriva as well. It offers KDE, Gnome and other desktops. There's a completely free version which is apart from support identical to its commercial versions (it is released a little bit later than the commercial verisons). So you can test it thoroughly before.
 
I've got ubuntu installed now and SLED 10.1 burned...I like the free status of ubuntu!
 
For people with a dislike for Gnome (like me), there's also Kubuntu with KDE as the default desktop environment, and Xubuntu with xfce.
I prefer the latter but suit yourself.
 
I'm a Ubuntu convert (for the most part) too, moving to it from Gentoo (although the recent Gentoo release does make me pine for it again). You can get support as B mentions and on the whole it's a sweet desktop Linux OS.

I've used SLED in recent times too, and for a KDE-based desktop it's very very good (IMO), if you don't like something *buntu does.
 
For people with a dislike for Gnome (like me), there's also Kubuntu with KDE as the default desktop environment, and Xubuntu with xfce.
I prefer the latter but suit yourself.

How's evolution (Gnome native, right) under KDE or xfce? Messing with ubuntu today (just got WPA up and ERP client installed). It's strange to me coming from SuSE as it is in many ways easier and in many ways necessitating more shell work. Very brown :)
 
I really like Ubuntu. Its about the only distro of Linux that I've liked using on a regular basis. I've been thinking a lot of using it for everything I do except gaming. Maybe...
 
Ubuntu, for the superior setup/install package handling. It will just install and update everything without any fuss.

You don't want to be left with a broken system when something goes wrong.
 
Ubuntu, for the superior setup/install package handling. It will just install and update everything without any fuss.

You don't want to be left with a broken system when something goes wrong.
I love Ubuntu, but that last sentence bears some irony. It wasnt that long ago that I let Ubuntu update some component, with the result that it couldnt start the desktop. Read about it here
 
Yes, it's not perfect either. But can you think of any OS that does it better? :)
No, I just think automating everything has its drawbacks. I was totally lost when that screen told me something about X not starting. I dint even knew the keybinds to bring up the console, much less knew for sure it was the update that was at fault. If I wouldnt have found the instructions on the net (via WinXP) I wouldve reinstalled.

IMHO if an illiterate (like me in case of Linux) sits infront, offering an upgrade-pack once a year might be better than giving him the choice to continually update components. I... just.. cant.. resist... updating... ;)
 
No, I just think automating everything has its drawbacks. I was totally lost when that screen told me something about X not starting. I dint even knew the keybinds to bring up the console, much less knew for sure it was the update that was at fault. If I wouldnt have found the instructions on the net (via WinXP) I wouldve reinstalled.

IMHO if an illiterate (like me in case of Linux) sits infront, offering an upgrade-pack once a year might be better than giving him the choice to continually update components. I... just.. cant.. resist... updating... ;)
I can resist that, because companies depend on it for the good functioning of all their stuff. ;)

But, yes, in any case you need some expert who you can call when things break down. And while there are many more Windows "Gurus", they cannot do more when something does fail, if anything.


As an example, I needed to install Microsoft Small Business Server 2003 at a client a few years ago, just after release. They had a smoothly functioning Debian server, but a friend of the director told him that SBS 2003 was the only way to go, so he demanded that.

Well, after spending a weekend installing that on the brand-new server (it really takes that long), it didn't work. The install gave some errors, and the only way to "resume" was to start all over. With the same result.

I spend three days figuring it out, only discovering that there was an error on CD 3 of the installation disks. Microsoft offered a workaround (that didn't work), and a free replacement CD. Postage and shipping: 90 Euro. Delivery time: three months (!!!).

Sigh. What do you do in such a situation?
 
While troubleshooting MS products might have more gui to it, it's invariably (IMHO) more f*cked up. Yes, command line fixing linux is a royal pain in the butt (I sure wish ATI drivers didn't reqire a recompile of fglrx every time the kernel is updated), but they actually work and without a reboot.

I only have one server left running MS2k3 and it's only hosting AV updates for the LAN.
 
Ubuntu can fool people. You get to feeling very comfortable, everything I need it to do can be easily done with the GUI or very simple instructions in the terminal, but as soon as a problem comes up and there's no one holding my hand I get lost.

I'm guessing I'd feel the same though if I had grown up using Ubuntu and started using Windows.
 
Back
Top