What's A Good Starter Linux distro?

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.

Why are you looking at Linux?

[Zocalo]

You need to start by asking yourself the question "Why do I want to look at Linux?". I have been asked for recommendations several times and generally pick one of the following:

If it's because of a moral/open source issue, then realistically you have to go with Debian, but you can expect to encounter an almost vertical learning curve at the start - it's not reknown as an "easy to install" distro. So much so in-fact that I would *never* recommend a user with no *nix experience install it until they had played with another distro for a while - that's the beauty of Linux of course, you can play around until you find what suits you best.

If you are getting into Linux because you are going to be using it in a corporate environment, then you probably want Red Hat; it (or a derivative) is used on perhaps 90% of systems with "Linux Inside" and corporates seem to like Red Hat best, but check your intended first... Red Hat's installer has leapt forward recently and it's a very nice distro for support because it has the largest user base abd has generally given me the least grief.

Finally, if you are coming from Windows and are just curious to see what the fuss is about, then checkout S.u.S.E. and/or Mandrake. The former has an "everything including several kitchen sinks" approach and the latter is perhaps the best at making Windows users feel at home and has a very nice installer.

Finally. Play. There are lots of distros; the above are just the ones I know enough of the current specifics to support a new user on. Once you know your way around; install another distro. Play. Install another distro. Play...

best way to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes down to it, all distros are basically the same with slightly different wrapping. I started off with slackware first, went to Redhat, tried Mandrake once, and now using Debian. I've found there are three major things that can affect your usage:

• The installation
• The management system (often related to the installer)
• Room for going out of the management system

Overall, I was most impressed by Redhat's installer. Of all the machines I installed on it caused the least amount of problems. Mandrake in some ways looked a little slicker, but when it had much less control, and ultimately annoyed me enough not to go further. Debian's installation lacks a lot. I beleive this is partly because the installation is less important with Debian (and I've gathered the same with Mandrake?)

Although there is a certain amount of simplicity involved with distros based on tarballs (i.e. slackware) with the number of applications it can be rather time consuming after awhile. As I mentioned, I used redhat for a long time, and I found the RPM system to be rather frustrating at times. However, for a beginner you probably won't notice the some difficulties that might come up, as well as user friendlier front ends like ximian's installer.

Overall, really the key to getting used to Linux is: (a) patience (b) an ethusiasm for some punishment for great reward later in life [sounds like a religion..] (c) you need to make sure you sit down and spend a lot of time on the linux box - its a matter of needing to do things, and having no choice but to research how they are done [for instance, you 'need' to burn a CD, and you have to figure out how to set up ATAPI cdrom writers up] (d) an O'Reilly book by your side (I still have not found a good substite) - yeah, its basically what you'll find online for free, but unless you have another computer around, certain things could be difficult to lookup, and paper is sometimes better.

Best distro = a good friend

[electroniceric]

In my experience, Linux has quite a few little impasses that are incredibly difficult and time-consuming to figure out, but can by easily bypassed by someone who knows what they're doing.

FAQs, HOWTOs, man pages and bulletin boards usually have the steps to do what you're trying to do, but in my experience you can't understand the answer until someone explains the source of your confusion.

If you really want to save yourself some grief, find yourself someone who knows Linux reasonably well, invite them over for dinner regularly, and then get them to help you figure out the problems you've been stumped by.

Re:RedHat

[camusflage]

Only on slashdot... The third post gets a "redundant" moderation.

As a primarily Windows user, I've never had a problem with Red Hat, be it on its own system, under VMWare, or even on an old Sun Ultra 1 system I was playing with.

Red Hat != Microsoft

[mattdm]

I've heard this analogy quite often, but it's not fair. (And I think we all know that even if you didn't mean it negatively, in these circles, being compared to MS isn't exactly an endorsement.)

Red Hat might have the best selling and/or most popular distribution, but they're not Microsoft-like an any meaningful way. In fact, they're one of the most -- if not the #1 -- Free Software-friendly commercial distributions. All of the software they write is released under the GPL, and with the sole exception of Netscape 4.7x, the distro includes no closed software. (They've said that Netscape will go away when Mozilla is a completely viable replacement, which shouldn't be too long now.) And, they've shown repeatedly that they're not interested in becoming a monopoly (of Linux or in general) -- they're interested in increasing the Linux "pie" completely. (A great example of this is the Mandrake distribution, which basically started as a branch from RH Linux.)

In fact, take this as a challenge to people in general: point out one way in which Red Hat's behavior is like Microsoft's. From what I can tell, it's pretty much all "they're-too-popular-to-be cool" syndrome.

(As a side note: I'd say Caldera, with Ransom Love's anti-GPL rhetoric [zdnet.com], is more like Microsoft -- or at least, they'd like to be.)

Re:What a fun question.

[Arker]

Mostly good advice. A couple of disagreements. I don't think you should rule slack out. It's not the easiest to install, but it's really not that hard. Anyone that's installed pre-win95 dos shouldn't have much trouble getting slack going. The package management is minimalist, but it does the one thing you really need and does it well - it installs and uninstalls packages cleanly. I've used it and I've used RPM based distros and honestly had a lot less trouble with slack tarballs than with rpms. And it's the leanest, fastest distro you're likely to find - perfect for an older slower machine. I've run slack with KDE happily on a machine that was just unbearably slow running Redhat or Mandrake with KDE - very impressive. The slack team takes care to configure things properly before compiling, and it shows. The guy asking the question didn't give enough information about his own situation to rule slack out IMOP. While Mandrake is perfect for the would-be Windows refugee that is installing to a new, fast machine, and wants the minimum of hassle or unfamiliar-looking routines, it's not exactly the leanest and meanest and may not perform very well on an old backup computer.

Other than that, I agree with everything you say, although I prefer WindowMaker instead of Ice that's just personal preference, either is a great choice, full featured window managers without all the overhead.

Use what your friends use

[curunir]

I started out using SuSE and Turbo Linux. I eventually moved to Red Hat because that's what all my friends knew. By using my friends as a resource, not only did I get another resource beyond online faqs and man pages, but I also had them checking up on me to make sure that I was learning about it. I use debian now, but my learning process was made that much easier by using what they used.

My advice is to use whatever distro your friends use. While you can definitely do it on your own, it just makes it easier to have that extra resource.

"Hold My Hand, Please"

[Webz]

I'd just like to remind everyone before all the distro zealots start pouring in... This isn't about which distribution is the most hardcore or most powerful... It basically comes down to the one that can emulate Windows the most or hold the user's hand throughout the entire process. By that I mean at least documentation for everything, because users diving into Linux will only know that help doesn't always come from a talking paper clip... With that said, an auto install is a must. Sure, the guy asking the question was an NT user, and I'm sure the implies some technical merit above 9x users, but it still isn't much. Most people won't know the details of their hardware nor will they refer to the distro's website for compatibility listings. Why? Because Windows almost never required it... Hmm, the distro also has to be easy to use (tough, this usability thing isn't it) and easy to configure. People like making their computers look pretty and have nice wallpaper, so that's probably the first thing they'll dive for. Aside from a solid interface, a cutesy one would be nice too, complete with penguin or monkey or what have you, as to lessen the intimidation factor people have when using new technology. Oh and I really can't think of a solution for this, but it must be hard for GUI based users to get used to a command prompt. It's definately a necessary and powerful aspect of *NIX, but ya gotta admit, isn't it kinda cold and scary?

So, all in all, it doesn't necessarily have to be Windows, it just has to do the same things Windows does.

Re:RedHat

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a good question is, What is best for a user from windows to do? learn a distro that is easier to use or to learn the distro that is more hardcore, and shed any windows-likeness in the process?

before you install, research your hardware

[khuber]

Make sure that your hardware is fully supported first! That includes your motherboard, graphics card, cdrom, sound card, and any accessories like printers, modems, etc. I can't emphasize this point enough. If you try installing on unsupported or poorly supported hardware you will be disappointed and frustrated.

Once you have that down, then figure out which distribution to use and make sure that it has a kernel that supports your hardware.

I have been using Mandrake for some time and it has been my favorite.

-Kevin

Re:Mandrake is a better transitional Linux.

[Simon Brooke]

One of the things I'm seeing here is that people are recommending the distro's they've used recently, and knocking distros they haven't. For example

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,

I installed yet another Debian 2.2r3 box yesterday, the fifth in this room alone. Procedure: put the first CD in the CD drive, boot, answer a few on-screen questions, change CDs when prompted, job done. All distros are getting slicker, all installs are getting easier. Likewise, all package management systems are getting better.

However, while it's my perception that Mandrake is leading the charge on slickness of install and point-clicky admin tools, Debian is definitely leading the charge on package management and stability. As a newbie, you value slick install and pointy clicky admin; as you get older and more grizzled, you value package management and stability.

So my advice to a newbie would definitely be try Mandrake first, but be prepared to switch later.

What a fun question.

[Anthony Boyd]

I've been right in the thick of this lately, converting my 7-computer home (macs, linux, windows) into a 100% Linux home. My low-end computer is a 75 mhz 486 laptop with 4 megs of RAM, my high-end is a 750 mhz P3 with 192 megs of RAM. Here are my thoughts after getting into it with a lot of distros.

Red Hat is the default most new users would pick. As BigBlockMopar said in another post, it's what most howtos and guides assume you're using. They have marketshare, they have a GUI installer, they're relatively stable. They also don't invoke a die-hard following much anymore, probably because of stunts like the non-compatible gcc compiler included in the most recent releases. I also agree with BigBlockMopar that the .0 releases suck. His suggestion to stick with 6.2 and patch it, or wait for 7.2, that's good advice. I loooooveed 6.2 and 5.2.

Mandrake is clearly targeting the Windows-refugees. Their installer is slick, it detects even obscure hardware for you, it sets up a nice-looking GUI, lots of point-and-click tools. It also has a security setup which I love -- you can turn on a small firewall, set security to "paranoid" and really protect your machine. But Mandrake's 8.0 is like Red Hat's 7.0 -- buggy. Their graphical RPM tool will lock up if it can't do passive FTP -- it doesn't appear to time out or have any code to fail gracefully. The AbiWord fonts completely screwed up the 8.0 release, some text is almost unreadable. The TuxRacer game will die if you use KDE. But the community is great. It's the only place you can go, say "I love how Windows does this" and not get flamed. People are really friendly. 8.1 should be a delicious release if they squeeze in gcc 3.0 and X-Windows 4.1.

Debian is great because of apt-get. It lets you install just a very core Linux setup, and then add bits & pieces safely, as needed. But the installer is painful -- one install literally took about 6 hours, because there is a whole LOT of detail in there. You can switch packages on and off at a very granular level. Didn't help that during the video card part of the install, it locked up. But I still like this distro for one big reason: it will install on my lame old 486 laptop with almost no RAM. It's a miracle I can shoehorn anything onto that machine, and Debian does it. Debian is usually only downloaded, they don't much sell CDs. Debian is run by volunteers, so the system really works well, people put TLC into the bits they help with. But that also means packages fall behind if the maintainer is busy or loses interest, and it isn't really a mainstream consumer product. Progeny is a commercial version of Debian that is more up to date.

Small Linux is another good Linux for old old computers. It comes on 2 floppy disks for install, and you can run off a disk if you wish. I tried to copy it to my 486 hard drive, but it got too complicated and I bailed for Debian.

Here are three that I don't use (although I used to play with Slackware). First, Slackware's package tool isn't really a package tool. It doesn't resolve dependencies. I'm fairly good at Linux, but I still consider Slackware too advanced for me. It is the most up-to-date Linux release right now though. Second, I haven't tried SuSe, although I've lusted after it a little in the stores. It's a good, big distribution, lots of apps. Nice and graphical. But it also needs a lot of RAM -- I think 64 megs was the recommended base. This will be best on modern, fast machines, I think. Third, I don't use Caldera because their new license don't allow users to freely install Linux on multiple machines. More money for them, which is good (Linux vendors need to survive), but I don't use them because of it.

Lastly, some advice in general: if you're going to be installing on older machines, remember to AVOID using Gnome or KDE. Install them to get their apps, but then also install IceWM or WindowMaker, and use those instead. IceWM runs apps from other window managers really well, and it's responsive. It's what I'll be using on my 486 laptop when I get it upgraded to 20 megs of RAM.

Re:Red Hat - Not the best overall, but well suppor

[eric2hill]

This is not meant as a flame. Please do not read it as such.

I'm an avid Win2K user, and your post follows the /. FUD tradition quite nicely. You said that "[Linux] blows NT/2000 out of the water in security and stability." then go on to say that "and do the BIND upgrade, since most older Linux/UNIX distros ship with a fairly dangerous DNS server vulnerability.".

Isn't this a little contradictory?

2K has security problems, yes. So does RedHat. So do most other distributions of Linux. It's always a matter of patches/updates to the latest bug-free code. Yes, Linux usually gets fixes quicker than 2K, but at the same time, Microsoft was (as they should be) quick to jump on the fix to IIS5 with all the Code Red viri running around.

Please try not to bash 2K just because it's made by MS. It works. It works better than any other OS that MS has produced. MS took a clue about stability from Linux, just as Linux should take a clue about usability.

It's all about options, not "my dad can beat up your dad".

coupla cents

[go$$amer]

I decided to try the same thing a couple years ago on a tired p166 (S series - mind you, no MMX extensions here!) clocked to 200. I also had a couple drives at 1 gig and 540 megs. Not being one to take the easy route, and enjoying "first on the block" DSL download speeds, I grabbed Redhat and Debian, despite hearing that Debian could be, er, less than intuitive to the new user. I did my homework, maintained a good solid pipe to the user materials on both distros, and found that Debian actually provided the best starter platform. It forced me to break with my years of windows complacency and actually learn whatinhell the the OS was going to do and what I'd better do to make it fly. Granted, I'd already suffered through years of Dos, all the Windows os'es (from 2 on, sorry to say...) Mac, Unix and, whatever those trash 80s ran on... Do yourself a favor and get a good (O'Reilly?!? look for recommendations in the archives here) and learn it ground up. If the install is spoon fed to you, you're just another Win NT guy that ran a Linux install app... Like I said, my 2 cents...

Red Hat - Not the best overall, but well supported

[BigBlockMopar]

For your first Linux distro, I recommend Red Hat Linux. While I think it's unquestionable that it's not the best Linux, especially from a security standpoint, it's very well supported. Almost every Linux FAQ you'll find on the 'Net treats Red Hat as the defacto standard.

Coming from NT/2000, for the first little while, everything is going to feel really foreign and strange. Don't lose your way. Relax and read the docs which are all over the 'Net. And don't be afraid to experiment with the system.

Red Hat has (don't flame me, this is from memory) an installed base of about 50% of the Linux market; you can't beat the support. And even if it's not the most secure or stable Linux, it blows NT/2000 out of the water in security and stability.

Specific version? Find a Red Hat 6.2 distro; make sure you turn off un-needed daemons ("services" in Windows parlance) and do the BIND upgrade, since most older Linux/UNIX distros ship with a fairly dangerous DNS server vulnerability.

I'd stay away from x.0 versions, especially RH 7.0, which, to be blunt, sucked. I like the greater maturity of the 6.2 distro over RH 7.1 because, well, RH 6.1 wasn't nearly as good as 6.2. Note that the kernel that ships with 6.x and 7.0 is a 2.2 series kernel, and a more modern distro has a 2.4 series kernel, which means better built-in firewalling, SMP support and a few other goodies.

Once you're comfy with it, consider moving up to Debian or Slackware - but that's a matter of opinion.

Poll Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we have this one as a poll?

AND

I've lost the link to the CowboyNeal ISO's, can someone please post the link.

Mandrake or Progeny

[steveha]

I've tried Mandrake. It had a great installer; it was very easy to get going. It should be a good way to get started with Linux and hack around.

But I am a rabid fan of Debian. Debian is easy to maintain; once a Debian system is working, it is so easy to keep it up-to-date. The Debian volunteers do a great job of putting together the packages, and the apt-get system is just wonderful.

But many folks find Debian hard to install. Thus I recommend you give Progeny Debian a try. Progeny is available for free download, or as a packaged product with support. Be sure to check and see if your hardware is supported, however; if the installer melts down, it isn't any fun.

steveha

Depends...

[drudd]

It really depends on what you consider necessary qualities of a "newbie" distro...

If you want something that's simple to set up and maintain (i.e. short learning curve) then mandrake is probably your best bet.

If you actually want to learn linux and its workings (which I advise) then use something which forces you to read a few faq's once in a while... like debian, or even better, slackware.

Doug

Re:What's a good car to buy?

[Swaffs]

If you're looking to rebuild your engine, an older Camaro/Firebird or even a Corvette is the way to go. Chevy small blocks like those are extremely popular for that purpose and hence its easy to find parts, modification kits and resources for those engines. They're also quite simple and very reliable. BMW and Volkswagens are also popular cars for modification, but their engines are much more complicated and delicate, and would require much more skill to rebuild or modify one.

Trying to learn linux?

[Foxman98]

If you are serious abot trying to "learn" linux - then nothing will teach you as much as slackware. Check it out at slackware.com [slackware.com]. It might not be the easiest, but you will know a hell of a lot more about the way linux works after installing slackware, rather than redhat or mandrake.

Synopsis

[mosch]

This article will result in:

• 27 posts saying mandrake is the best
• 15 posts saying mandrake is lame
• 42 posts saying debian is the best
• 11 posts praising SUSE
• 20 posts flaming redhat
• 12 posts saying you should use *BSD instead
• 75 posts with no identifiable content
• 0 informative, well-reasoned posts

Why will it contain this crap? Because it really doesn't matter what you use as long as you learn the unix philosophy, so just pick a distro that you like, be it Debian, RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, Caldera or even FreeBSD or something.

What really matters is that you realize that your choice isn't the only choice. Make one, explore it, learn about it for a few months, then try another one and learn the differences. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Re:Red Hat - Not the best overall, but well suppor

[Dr_Claw]

[RedHat]
And even if it's not the most secure or stable Linux, it blows NT/2000 out of the water in security and stability.

I'd disagree with that. Linux tends to be as secure as the versions of the daemons you have running on it. Having done lots of installs of different distributions, if you ask to install a service it will be installed and run. I do RedHat installs and have only what I want running, I know people who do Debian installs and end up with things like discard, daytime, samba, etc running and not realising it. Does this mean Debian is less secure than RedHat? Of course not - it just means I know what things to select (or not) and how to check what's been installed and what's running... and my friend doesn't.

I suspect that part of RedHat's reputation comes from the fact that it's very easy to select an "install everything" option whcih does result in lots of unecessary services running. As you say yourself, it's one of the most popular distros - it's also one of the most well known. Hence you get lots of newbies who choose RedHat as their first choice and end up doing just that because they don't know any better. Recent versions of RedHat combat this in two ways. Firstly, there's up2date which is nice. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, during the install you can setup a firewall.

All that aside, the real answer is not that one distribution is better than another, it's that new people to Linux should RTFM. The same is true with most OSes, programs, etc. There are a large number of people who have very little clue, and some of them try to use Linux when they really shouldn't.

I like the greater maturity of the 6.2 distro over RH 7.1

If it's for someone new to Linux, and it's for a desktop machine then I'd definitely recommend 7.1 over 6.2. Or 7.2 when that's out (a beta of it was released a little while ago). The 7 series has the features I noted above, much more recent versions of software (nice for playing around and getting a better idea of how good things are), better hardware support (2.4 kernel, XFree 4).