What's A Good Starter Linux distro? 573
alen writes "I've been working with NT for a year now, and I'm getting really tired of it. So I finally decided to learn Linux, after a year of putting it off. I've got an old P2 266 that I'm going to use. Now the next question is what distro do I get?
What's a good starter version? I'm just looking to get the feel of it and to play around a little. " This question gets asked periodically - it's always good to hear have a lively discussion about it - I love my Debian but have heard that Mandrake is a good starter distro.
Floppix! (Score:1, Informative)
Designed by a college prof, for use in the school lab. No hard drive support, so you can't f up your current system. perfect for the first couple days of "what do I do?" at the command line. Download from http://floppix.com
Give Mandrake a go (Score:5, Informative)
Gives you lots of GUI configuration help.
All in all it is a nice beginner distro. As you learn more you can move away from the GUI configuration and do it by hand. Then latter on, if you want to keep learning more you can start setting up the more expert distos like Slackware, of Linux from Scratch.
Whatever you decide to do, Mandrake is certainly nice - hell my sister and Mother in Law both manage to use it everyday, without problems.
Maybe OT, but how about Cygwin? (Score:3, Informative)
So I installed the Cygwin tools. Recently I upgraded them to the latest versions, including XFree86. Wow, do they ROCK. Most of the CLI tools I"m used to from Linux (BASH, SSH, man, info etc) where there. XFree86 defaulted to twm, but I downloaded the IceWM sources and compiled it with NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER and it works perfectly. Some configuration changes were necessary in some of the window manager files to get them working just so (in particular XTERM defaults to the current SHELL environment variable which normally under NT is set to cmd.com; changing the menus to xterm -e "/bin/bash" does the trick).
So far all the Linux sources I've downloaded have configured and compiled without any fuss.
If you aren't doing anything with the Linux kernel and you don't need a Linux desktop, then Cygwin on NT or 2000 may be a good way to get access to the user tools you get under Linux.
Try Several (Score:5, Informative)
Why restrict yourself to one distribution, particularly if you're going to start out by installing on an older computer? One of the best things about Linux is that you can get distributions dirt cheap. Go to a place like Linux Mall [linuxmall.com] and get a bunch. You can even get multi-disk sets containing several distributions packaged together specifically so you can try out different ones and pick your favorite. Of course if you have a fast network connection and a CD burner, you could even download the ISO images and burn them yourself instead of paying $2 per CD. If you want, you can set up your partition scheme with a separate /home directory that doesn't get reformatted with each new distribution so that your settings are preserved from one distribution to another.
The big message, though, is not to take our word for which distro is best for you; find out for yourself. But don't forget to pay full price for the one you decide you like after you've made your decision. You'll get manuals, support, and help keep the maker of your chosen distro in business so that you can keep using it in the future.
Re:FreeBSD (Score:3, Informative)
You realize of course we'll be marked as trolls for this, right? But, you beat me to it. So I'm ganna give you an AMEN.
I don't want to start a FreeBSD vs. Linux war...
I don't want to start a FreeBSD vs Linux battle, either. I get enough of that from some of the people I know. But I have to admit that after using several Linux distros and using FreeBSD, the choice (for me) was quite clear. That's not to say I didn't like some of the Linux distros I tried. Not at all. I really liked Storm and I fully intend to install either Debian or Slackware on an IBM I have sitting in the corner. But when it came time to choose a system of the many I tried to run my web-server off of, I had to settle on FreeBSD.
At first I was a little wery about going with something slightly less mainstream than Linux, but good Linux binary compatibility (not to mention the Ports Collection) was a plus that won me over to FreeBSD.
With FreeBSD the first few days were really rough because there were several major annoyances I had, and none of my Linux friends had any useful insight. But I quickly solved most of my problems on my own. I feel I have learned much more this way. Plus, when I needed quick answers, web-searches almost always provided immediate and exact answers because there is only one FreeBSD and many other users have experienced the exact same problems.
It's something of a shame that Storm went the way of the wind, but after I made my choice to run FreeBSD it hasn't mattered too much. As for my soon-to-be Linux system, that just shows that I'm not knocking Linux at all (how could I?) it's just that I made the choice based on my needs and what I like. I personally don't feel I was moving forward fast enough with any of the Linux distros, but I felt comfortable with FreeBSD very quickly.
That's just me.
From a newbie's standpoint... (Score:2, Informative)
Learning Linux has gotten a bit easier (Score:5, Informative)
From my experience the most frustrating part of learning Linux is getting all or most of a computer's hardware to work properly. For a long time I had no sound card that Linux supported. Fortunately, hardware support and automatic detection has improved tremendously. Now many ethernet cards, video cards, and sound cards are automatically detected by various Linux installs. CD-ROMS are almost always compatible with standard IDE and SCSI drivers. I believe that new users to Linux should be focusing on learning to install software, use popular software, and learn his/her way around a shell. Learning Linux shouldn't be mostly about learning how to install Linux, and this is where a few distributions have made great progress.
As your first distribution, I would recommend Mandrake. I have been a Red Hat user since my first install (and administering Red Hat based Cobalt servers). Red Hat's install (both graphical and text based) are reasonable for a new user, but they don't explain things as thoroughly as Mandrake. I installed Mandrake a few times and was fairly impressed with the installer and explanation, but it's a little too annoying to non-newbies. However, a new user simply wanting to toy with Linux would probably be best served by starting out with Mandrake.
Mandrake is nice that they are a download-friendly distribution. No other distribution is as easy to find in downloadable iso form. Yes, Red Hat offers it, but they promote their pay package far more than Mandrake does..companies like making it no-so-obvious that they can get it for free. I can't blame them. Also, Debian offers downloads, but their website isn't as easy to navigate and I'd hardly consider Debian a newbie-friendly install. Visit the mirror list [linux-mandrake.com] for mandrake to download the install isos. There are two iso images to burn to cd-rom using common software like Easy CD Creator. If interested in Redhat, the mirror list [redhat.com] offers a variety of sites to find both RPM files (for individual software install) and iso images.
However, buying a boxed set may be worthwhile for a new user. No need for big downloads, a cd-writer, and figuring out how to install. These include support and an installation manual.
I find computer books extremely helpful in learning a new operating system or programming language. Yes, website and forums are available, but a book is generally arranged quite well for new users. My first book was "Red Hat Linux Unleashed", that huge orange book. It included Red Hat 5.2 (though I already had 5.1 installed by that time), and had a few chapters on installation. Then, as I needed a reference or wanted to learn about setting up new services, I just read through the appropriate chapter. Though many disagree, I find it most helpful to have a large comprehensive book that covers all topics lightly to give a user a start. From there many websites provide the detailed information required to complete a task. I found the how-tos helpful in most cases.
So, in short, get Mandrake (or possibly Red Hat), get a good book or two (buy from a bookstore to be able to flip through it and see if it seems right, while also looking online to find reviews). Once you get the feel of using Linux a bit - take a look at other distributions (Progeny is a nice entry into the Debian world, for example).
Good luck.
Re:FreeBSD (Score:2, Informative)
My 2 chips (Score:5, Informative)
Using Slack will teach you how things are done, and it will teach you what not to do. You will spend a lot of time doing menial admin tasks. Slack doesn't even rotate your logs, so you'll have to do that yourself!
After you've mastered Slack, move on to something that's well maintained and stable; i.e. Debian or Red Hat Linux. Forget Mandrake. All of my friends who've used it have found it to be less stable than Red Hat. Noticing that a Linux distro isn't stable is terrible, and frustrating. Red Hat or Debian will be blissful in comparison to Slack, and you will love them for the rest of your days. Plus, most all of the things you learned from Slack will still apply.
Choosing the best Linux distro for You (Score:5, Informative)
DukeOfURL wrote this helpful article in choosing the best Linux distribution for your skill level, with comparisons of Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced distributions. They highly recommend Mandrake Linux for beginners, and I would tend to agree.
For a beginning user (Score:1, Informative)
If you dont know linux, the easiest installer is definatly Red Hat. I've tried a couple others, but Red Hat, for the beginning user , is the choice to make.
After you understand the basics, you can move on to something better, like Debian. But start with red hat.
Something I didnt know at the time, but could be helpful to you, is Partition your
It makes changing distros a lot easier
Re:Red Hat - Not the best overall, but well suppor (Score:1, Informative)
That aside, I know exactly what you mean. There's always WinVi, which IMO is an excellent Vi clone for Windows (acts like Vi and NotePad). But you're right, Windows does seem chunky... Makes me wonder how much time M$ spent on optimization...
Being a linux newbie myself... (Score:3, Informative)
I have tried redhat 7.1 and mandrake 7.2 and I had a sound card I was never able to get working. Mandrake 8 found and configured it the first time(I did'nt even know KDE had a startup sound before).
I will admit that all the guis can make it a little to easy to set up services though. They can be a crutch and I try hard to learn to set stuff up by hand first using the gui as a last resort and trying to figure out what they did later when I can.
I really do want to learn to compile the kernel by hand one of these days especially because mandrake 8 will not install on my laptop at all(even in text mode). mandrake 7.2 did but I was never able to get my cheap ass nic to work.
But like I said I'm no expert and I use linux for work (SQl, perl, webdev) everyday.
Re:Mandrake is a better transitional Linux. (Score:2, Informative)
He probably placed Slackware above Debian for a few reasons. The install actually needs no explanation. It is all very easy to use and understand, and works quite well. Debian was my first Linux installation, and it absolutely confused the heck out of me trying to figure out exactly which disk images I needed to download, etc. Then I used Redhat, and at least got it installed, but then I tried to compile some stuff. That has a tendency to not always work so well on Redhat. (Don't know about Debian, never tried). Then I went to Slackware. It was very much like a breath of fresh air. I could actually download things, decompress them, run `./configure`, `make`, `make install` and it actually did it. Right. The first time. Without hacking the code at all.
Slackware has more rudimentary package-management
How is Slackware's package management more rudimentary? It simply expects you to know what you have installed on your system. It doesn't hold you to any stupid dependencies, it doesn't go downloading a bunch of other crap, it doesn't have some database to get screwed up if you start installing other packages manually without adding them to the database. These parts of the design are one thing that appeals to those who use Slack. It just works. The package manager is not rudimentary, it just follows the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) philosophy, and to good effect.
Depressing (Score:1, Informative)
The number of Debian users I see bashing other distibutions is really depressing. It is enough for me just to use the distro I love, I don't have to make myself feel superior by bashing other distros constantly.
Until recently I didn't see it very much, I hardley ever see it on the Debian mailing lists.
It is such ridiculous elitism. I see many people attacking the security of other distributions (*especially* RedHat). I don't know about you guys, but last time I checked there were alot of security advisories for Debian just like every other distro.
The last install fest we had I installed RedHat on more than 20 boxes, and during every installation it asked to configure a firewall and turn off any services you don't want *during* installation. So, like most other security problems, if you have unnecesary services running it is *your* fault.
As far as being unstable, I agree RedHat should not have used 2.96, however it was blown completely out of proportion by so many people.
2.96 made *C++* incompatible with older versions, that is all. Any C code that did not compile was not a bug, that was broken C code, because version 2.96 and 3.0 refuse to compile many non-standard code that older versions compiled silently.
Now if you where developing C++ and where distributing it in source code and not in a binary package, your code probably wouldn't compile on other distros.
Either way 3.0 will be defualt in all most every distribution in a few months and people are still using 2.96 with it's C++ compatibility issues as a reason for saying an entire distribution "sucks".
I see many people asking us to install many different distributions on many different types of computers, they all seem to work out fine for most people. So I don't know why some people are so immature.
Re:Another vote for SuSE (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. If you want a good learning curve and not too many weird bits, go with SuSE. My two gripes with Mandrake are how slowly they release packages (I wound up compiling everything, thus negating the benefits of a package system), and how the had lots of undocumented automated "features", like their menusync system.
That's assuming you want to learn to *use* and *administrate* Linux. For a much higher learning curve and a path towards kernal development and manual dependancy management (which isn't necessary unless you want to make your own distro or develop Linux itself), try Slackware.
--
Evan
Depends on your needs. (Score:5, Informative)
Mandrake is the Mac of Linux
Redhat is the MS of Linux
Slackware is the UNIX of Linux
Debian is the Linux of Linux.
Re:Trying to learn linux? (Score:1, Informative)
Another vote for SuSE (Score:4, Informative)
SuSE (Score:3, Informative)
Short Answer: It depends on your needs. (Score:2, Informative)
First of all, it doesn't matter what distro you start with. You can always jump ship later for whatever your needs are.
Secondly, If you are looking for Linux experience to make you more attractive to businesses, go with a distro very friendly to businesses such as Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. If you are looking for a distro to really get under the hood and see how everything works (ie. you won't be babied), try Slackware or Debian.
If you have no experience at all, play with a Tom's Boot and Root disk
Mandrake or SuSE (Score:4, Informative)
SuSE is a good middle-of-the-road distro, imo, providing a pretty easy interface, but alot of customizibility too. I guess it really depends on if you want to LEARN LINUX before you start using it, or the other way around... getting your feet in the water before moving into the more difficult things... Just my opinion...
Re:Why is Mandrake so popular? (Score:3, Informative)
Having said all that, I think I'm switching from Mandrake to Debian after the next stable release. I've got the urge to get my hands a little more dirty. :-)
Progeny (Score:4, Informative)
rr
Re:Red Hat - Not the best overall, but well suppor (Score:2, Informative)
Having used all 5.*, 6.* and 7.* (now 7.2beta mixed with Rawhide stuff) I have to say that for any new-2-linux guy, especially if we're set on RedHat, I'd absolutely go with 7.1 right now. The following is a short list why :
One could argue that the 2.96 gcc can be a burden if you're a developer, but I cannot understand what kind of a developer wouldn't have a large variety of compilers anyway. Installing gcc 3.x (or 2.95.x) is a lot more fun than code documentation anyway.
Oh and one more thing. One really good thing about RedHat is the thick book you get with it if you buy it. I know it's a tad expensive, but if you're migrating from Windoze it's really worth it (atleast so I hear, few friends of mine have migrated and haven't needed my help there at all).
Best newbie distro=SuSE (Score:4, Informative)
I installed SuSE 7.2 the other day, and it was well laid out and simple to install. It wasn't as automagic as Mandrake's install, but it's pretty close. I got Personal Edition this time around because I was looking for a more lightweight version that was better edited, and I'm pretty happy with it. They didn't leave out any of the essentials for a workstation, while making it lighter than the 7 cd/ 1 dvd Pro Edition.
Gawd, I sound like a commercial.
Anyway, that's my view. All flames will be printed out on TP and used to wipe my butt.
Oh, and one other thing...if any SuSE guys are out there, please PLEASE keep YaST2 as a separate program! In 7.2 the modules for it are integratable into KDE's Control Center. While this is more consistent and convenient, it screws with my ability to update KDE from source code.
toughy (Score:1, Informative)
some people prefer redhat but it does a lot of stuff for you automatically like windows would
slackware isnt the easiest to learn, but i beleive its the most beneficial in the end. it requires you to do more work on install, but once you get it were you like it, it stays that way :)
Re:before you install, research your hardware (Score:2, Informative)
FreeBSD (Score:4, Informative)
I'd recommend you take a good look at FreeBSD. Hop over to http://www.freebsd.org/ [freebsd.org] and take a look around. In most cases, all you need to get going is a couple of floppy disks and the instructions found here [freebsd.org]. The installation disks will automagically download the entire distribution via the net.
I don't want to start a FreeBSD vs. Linux war, but if you're looking for a server replacement, FreeBSD is a great choice. If you are wanting to use it on your desktop as a workstation, then perhaps Linux is the better choice, although I still wouldn't discount FreeBSD 100%.
RedHat (Score:3, Informative)
That is what I would suggest for any new linux user, especially coming from Windows.