next »

[Netsu]

+1 for Arch Linux. If you're willing to put a little bit of effort into it, you basically build your distro to how you want it. Plus, you never have to worry about out-of-date software/libraries, since it's rolling release. The wiki they have is fantastic too.

I've been using Arch as my primary system for 4 years now and I wouldn't recommend it to someone whose primary demand is stability. If you're a tinkerer by nature and are willing to put up with a breakage every now and then after an update (it's rare, but still happens) then definitely go Arch, otherwise stick to the Debian/Ubuntu based distros I'd say.

[Evan Balster]

Installed the latest NVidia drivers and things seem much more stable now.  Thanks rivon.

[rivon]

Installed the latest NVidia drivers and things seem much more stable now.  Thanks rivon.

Yeah, the bleeding edge GPUs are always a bit unstable a while after release and with the first compatible drivers...

[Oskuro]

Most people are using Ubuntu, especially gamers (according to Steam) so being compatible with it is the best thing you can do.

+1 to this.

I personally got a few issues with Ubuntu too, although most UI related problems I eventually solved by manually tweaking stuff (And most of them are because my laptop is an eldritch abomination i.e. a tablet-convertible with a hybrid Intel/ATI graphics card scheme).

Guess it'd be a good move to have a stable development only environment, and then a deployment environment (Ubuntu, Windows, etc..) to test the program as the user will most likely see it.

Now, I also use Ubuntu for non-development purposes, and so far it is behaving. Despite its quirks, it's less annoying than Windows has been lately, so that is a plus, but there are possibly better options out there.

Meaning to try Debian (which should be compatible with Ubuntu packages, as it is debian-based), I might once I get to the next format-all-the-drives cycle.