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.
The unanswerable question (Score:5, Interesting)
You're probably saying already, that doesnt make sense. Let me ellaborate.
RedHat [redhat.com]/Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com] are both very similar. Often, one user of one hates the other. RedHat people will say 'RedHat is more powerful and stable' and Mandrake people will say 'Mandrakes easier and less buggy'. As you can see, these statements conflict. Overall however, there very similar, and either one is fine. They're both based on RPM, and they both can be used for virtually anything.
Then there's the Slackware [slackware.org]/Debian [debian.org] crowd. They tend to stick together, but they have differant views none the less. They take pride in their 'elite feeling', in that only people with 'skill' can use and know these distributions. They're typically harder for the novice, yet easier for the seasoned Linux user. Debian has arguably the best package management, and Slackware has probably the most loyal user base ever formed. These are top choices for someone experienced in Linux. Additionally, their is Progney [progney.com], a commercial debian-based distribution that makes using Debian easier, and provides commercial support. This is quickly becoming a good alternative.
Finally, there's the SuSE [suse.com] and other crowd. They are less known and used, and usually appeal to a specific crowd. SuSE for instance, is very popular among non-US users. These are also generally good, especially if you have really specific needs.
Now, which crowd is right? None. Which is the best? None. It depends on what you want, what crowd you fit in. If you're very technical, You fall into the Slackware/Debian crowd. If you like what's popular, easy, and commercial, you'll like hanging out with the RedHat/Mandrake folks. And if you like something very specific, or a close community, you'll like SuSE or something else.
But what is right for you? That's up to you. Research all of them, Try a few, Play with them. It's like shopping for a car. Some like Chevy, Some like Ford, and some are fine with a Honda. And some just dont care.
What I use depends on the target machine. If it's a server, I'll go with either RedHat or Debian. If it's a workstation, RedHat. Firewall, I use OpenBSD or Debian. But like I said in the beginning, my opinion, or anyone else's, means nothing. Good luck.
Re:Red Hat != Microsoft? Please. (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Happy-friendly ways. chkconfig, linuxconf, rpm. The ideas are nice. they're very nice ideas. However, they're botched in a number of ways i'll soon get to. KDE, GNOME, whatever is available in whatever default installation of RedHat is nice and quite useable. Just like Microsoft. That is certainly admirable. Doesn't make it good, though.
2. Basic utilities crash. Have any of you done an RH 6.2 FTP install? Hell, even a custom CD install can easily pull a segfault out of RedHat. netconfig on 5.x and 6.1 will segfault if it doesn't get specific PTR lookup responses. Even worse than that, it'll segfault in the middle, so you don't know if it's changed your sysconfig settings, your live IP address/subnet/default route, or what... and if they're out of sync, don't expect netconfig to work once more to fix it. It'll just segfault some more and leave you hanging unless you can vi
3. Embrace and extend. RedHat has positioned itself to be the high-market-share distro. However, RedHat intentionally releases broken standards (RH 7's egcs for one?) and moves things around in such a way that if a software developer writes a program to be installed on a RedHat Linux system, it won't install on any non-RedHat-based distribution. If it does install, the crazy egcs release will keep it from running on the new machine. RedHat often screws with things like init scripts just enough to make them UNIX-like, but to break POSIX standards. What pisses me off about RedHat is how deliberate their embrace-and-extend design policies are.
I don't recommend RedHat for anything, because learning the quirks of RedHat puts users into bad practices of using their proprietary tools, or expecting the proprietary behavior of their tools to be standard cross-platform. It's sort of like how a lot of linux distros have a 'route' command that, for some reason, won't accept 'route add -net default' (which is standard across UNIX) but will accept 'route add default gw'... annoying.
And why do users use SysV-style Linux distros, and still use ps -ax? why not ps -ef?
Apples and Oranges... (Score:3, Interesting)
Each distro has its major features, enhancements, and drawbacks.
I suggest you get 2-5 distros together, for a new user, I suggest Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, Suse, and possibly Slackware as good comparisons.
Try each for a period of time, then see which one you like best after you try them all.
to each their own (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are an experienced computer user, that is comfertable with partitioning then, grab a distro like debian, or slakware, if you are new to the whole idea of resizing your HDD, then go with Redhat or Mandrake, they come with tools for setting up a loopback, come with graphical installs, and provide a good explanation of how and why you are doing certian things....
on second thought just install OpenBSD..
What is hard about Debian? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been using Linux and Debian long enough that it is probably just a case of I forgot what I learned, but could those of you with more fresh memories of difficulties shed some light for me?
There is one difficulty that has long been a problem with (I think) any Linux setup -- getting it to work with your hardware; although that is changing more and more. But I see that as a distribution-neutral problem.
When it comes to having well integrated software, and convenience in upgrading packages when you want new features or bug fixes, I have had far better luck with Debian than I ever do with Red Hat or Mandrake. The one version of Mandrake that I tried (7.2) was laughably broken. KDE settings would be lost without warning, their upgrade utility was completely worthless, because it did no dependency tracking for me, and several of the packages the "friendly GUI" listed would fail to be on the servers when I tried to download them. It was all I could do to keep the thing from spontaneously combusting. I gave up and switched my wife to Debian 8)
Maybe I'm just using my system differently than others? One suspicion I have is that maybe most newbies just install from CD, and then leave it alone most of the time. Therefore they don't expect to install new software they read about on slashdot or freshmeat, or upgrade to the latest version of qt for anti-aliased fonts, etc.
Anyone have any input that could help me out here? I never know what to tell potential newbies, because I always want to recommend Debian, but I know I've heard lots of people say that's a bad idea.
Sounds Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't follow things out of blindness and loyalty either. But I remember when I first installed 95 OSR2 back in the day. It was EASY. I never used it before but i installed it without looking at a manual, without a crash, it detected my hardware. It was simple.
I tried Corel Linux 1.0 and Caldara OpenDesktop 2.5 (I believe) Corel crashed on install, and Caldara didn't pick up my fairly good and 2-3 year old hardware.
Why can't linux be just as simple? (I haven't tried the new distros yet, but i'm willing)
It seems like there are alot of Linux elitists out there who what to keep linux to themselves. Now, There have been a small few of Linux users who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to help me out. I'm just saying, I cought alot of hell from those other asswipes becuase they were unwiling to help me solve my problems (which i tend to believe it was childsplay to them)
You want linux to grow? You want linux to make money? You want Linux to thrive and become an OS power to be reckoned with?
Personally I like the idea of an ordinary man being able to open the hood of his operating system and do some fixing if he feels the need to and has the compacity to do so. I like the idea of open source. Now, i don't know jack from shit about how linux works, but at least if i learned how to, familiarize myself with it, use and gain my own sense of pride by doing it myself in the process. This is actually what drew me to linux in the first place, it was the philosophy of it all. Not necessarlly becuase i hate MS. (which changes with the weather, and it's usually rainy.)
I'm just tired of the cold shoulder.
I found this particular article to be very helpful (along with alot of good comments). I also want a flavor of distro that feels and installs like windows to start off with. Not becuase i'm a wolf slipping into sheep's clothing, (or vice versa ;)) but because i want to acclimate myself to it, adjust to it without getting lost in the process.
And when I feel i have hit the bounderies of that particular distro, move to something more flexable and challinging, or maybe not.
Not everyone who drives a particular car has to become the sole mechanic of that car. Not everyone who wants to use linux nessessarly wants to hack and *really* get in the mechanics of it.
Is there such a thing as a "dumb linux user" like a "dumb windows user"? What i mean by that is, A person can use windows without ever knowing how to change certian hardware settings, or without knowing how to change the startup + shutdown screens, tweak the registry and the OS. A person who doesn't use windows with a wrench but just knows how to drive it. Can't there be a linux user counterpart?
Is that so bad? I mean christ, you hand the man a OS that is in essence free, give him the tools to fix and manipulate it, So you basically give the man the *Oppertunity* to put linux through the motions. He may never get that far, but at least if he has the desire to, he can do so and perhaps may even fix or create something great that he can then turn around and share with his fellow users.
Isn't that what Linux is supposed to be about, or am i completely missing the target here.
#Sig Goes here
WinLinux (Score:3, Interesting)
When I got started, I went with Debian (still a 1.x version; Slackware (a 6.x version) and Red Hat (a 5.x version). Having zero experience outside Windows these were fairly harrowing (esp deb and slack) but I got through it and read a LOT (sidenote: if your local library is any good, they'll have some decent books on linux in general, check out as many as you can and READ THEM ALL). Depending on the degree of technical competence and interest I recommmend different things. To my NT admin friends who want serious stuff and know their hardware back and forth, I tell them to go with deb, slack or a BSD. My wife, on the other hand, who just wants word processing, email, and web surfing on a box that doesn't blue screen every 20 minutes I went the Mandrake route, and my brother wanted more multimedia support so I pointed him to SuSE. I have changed "favorite" distros so many times I've lost count, all that matters is that you find one you're comfortable with, which only comes about by experimentation.
Re:Mandrake is a better transitional Linux. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd have to call this a gross exaggeration. My last experience with installing Debian was with Potato when it first came out, and it was nothing like the above. It was more than "a few questions" to begin with and I ended up with a non-functional network due to Debian's inability to correctly set up both NICs in the machine. It would set up one or the other, but not both (3c905c, if you must know). This is not rocket science.
How anyone can consider dselect "sophisticated package management" absolutely snows me. Whatever you're smoking -- share.
There are too many screwy things about Debian for it to be a good "starter" linux. For example, the default emacs installation is -- wait for it -- version 19.34!!! It's five years old & completely outdated!! Duh! Fire up your Gnome desktop (your only choice OOB) and try to access the internet. Surprise, no graphical browser. As I recall, in Potato, there actually is a "netscape" icon but it points nowhere.
No thanks. Slackware buries Debian in easy of installation and use. As for "package management," this not-so-grizzled user gets along fine with ./configure, make and make install.
mp
Re:Exactly my problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
(Under "So, why don't I use Linux")
>I don't understand the Linux development system...
The Linux development system is so fragmented because it simply has to be. So much more development is done with Linux that the guy who writes xyz doesn't have time to be involved with the kernel or the distribution phase. You can be assured things keep working by the distribution you use. The people packaging your distribution are really "in charge" of ensuring the software that comes with it works, no hassles. I guess if you don't feel comfortable trusting the distribution maintainer you can do it yourself (that's really not a good idea at all).
>If I have found a problem and a solution, who should I go to?
Kernel Problem: Linux or Alan Cox. But since that isn't happening (they're too busy making the kernels!), I'd suggest posting on one of the kernel traffic mail lists -- your suggestion will be reveiwed.
Software Problem: If you have the latest distribution, and the software you are using has been seen to work on other distributions just fine, send mail to the distribution creator. If it has troubles on all distributions, then send a patch to the author of the software (its probably still in alpha/beta). In the primary case the problem is limited to just your distribution. In the latter case the main software tree is repaired, which in time will flow into the other distributions, ensuring they are working in the future too.
>There is (maybe there is these days) no standard for installing additional software.
Well, if you're an RPMer, sure. If you do things the UN*X way, then its just the same as BSD. Choose where you want your software to live then:
./configure --with-prefix=/where/i/want/it
make
make install
Not hard in the slightest. It's been that way for the past few years. Before that you needed to edit the Makefile and change the install location. Before that I would agree, Linux wasn't ready for primetime. But that would be before '95.
You can be sure it doesn't screw up parts of the OS the same way you would be sure in BSD: Read the Makefile.
>Why does my startup-screen gets spammed with copyright about this and that, in multiple colours?
Funny, I don't get colours on boot in my Linux (Slackware). If you don't like the copyrights, well, you have the source. Use it. This really isn't a good argument against Linux, IMHO. Sorta like arguing you don't want an AT&T phone because it's red and says "AT&T" on it.
>I don't like the GPL.
I do.
As far as development goes, I prefer the protection the GPL gives my software from people like Microsoft or IBM using it in their proprietary OSes without my permission. But that's your choice, and I won't fault you for it. Other than that I really don't have much of a problem with the BSD license.
>which distribution should I take?
For you, definately Slackware.
>If I choose Red Hat or Debian or Suse, what are the consequences for later?
About the same as the consequences of choosing OpenBSD over FreeBSD. Nothing earth shatteringly different. Just -- well -- different. Like Swiss cheese is different from Mozerella cheese.
>Can I run the program compiled with Debian Linux under Red Hat or Suse.
If you compile it staticly, for sure. If you compile it dynamicly, make sure you have similar libraries on both. Again, the difficulty level is your choice.
>Can I even get it compiled?
If you are able to run *BSD, I don't see why not. You obviously have the necessary knowledge to run a Linux system without problems.
Just my 2 cents.
Here's what I did (Score:3, Interesting)
Debian - this was easily the toughest of them all. Text-based installer, questions I didn't know how to answer (why does it want me to become a USENET server?), etc, etc. But it finally ran, and being able to "apt-get" is amazingly cool.
Corel - I know I'll get flamed for this, and it DOES have disads. But it installed flawlessly on my computer, and seemed to work pretty well. On the plus side it acts a lot like windows, and installing software uses a variant of apt-get (which Corel is based on). I use it at home. On the downside, it's not nearly as supported as, say, Red Hat, so you need a lot more hand-holding. But I heartily recommend it.
Red Hat. I downloaded 7.1, and it had a great installer. The good side is that it's commonly considered the standard, so FAQs and programs are built specifically for it. On the down side, all the trojans and the like are built for it too. The problem I ran into is that applications stopped working for no apparent reason (even with re-installing from scratch) and Usenet didn't offer any solutions.
Mandrake - amazingly well put together. The installer was smooth as silk, everything looked and acted great, pretty sweet. I believe it's based on Red Hat, so take the pluses and minuses from that.
Overall - Any of them will work. Someone else suggested doing what I did, and I concur - buy or download all of them (and just go to linuxberg/linuxburg/linuxville and download the debian image- it took half an hour to figure out how to use debian's vaunted smart-installer, and then it didn't work. Get the ISO image), and try each one on your machine. I'd almost say to try installing them in this order - Corel, Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake. See how you like each one. Try installing a few programs. See what you think and once you're done, make sure to secure it. Keep it off the network until you have (if you can, since you'll be downloading stuff to patch it). In that part Debian has the advantage, due to "apt-get update", which will update all the packages, and I believe install all the security patches. But you still need to secure the thing, look at Bastille.
And let Slashdot know what you went with, and why. If it gets posted, it'll make an interesting followup.
Excellent Book for Newbies (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone know of any other good starter books?
Mandrake is a better transitional Linux. (Score:1, Interesting)
From easiest to most difficult, he pecking order is:
Mandrake
Red Hat
SuSE
Slackware
Debian
FreeBSD (not Linux, I know).
other architectures. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm assuming, due to the NT postion of the submission, that you're looking for a decent distro for the x86 platform.
However, if you have an extra PPC machine kicking around somewhere, i would suggest getting a copy of Yellow Dog Linux 2.0. I just can't say enough great things about this one; smooth install, good package tools, works great by default. Check it out if you get a chance.
Anyone else have suggestions for good Sparc or Alpha distros?
--saintRe:Another vote for SuSE (Score:2, Interesting)
That's what I'd do if I still built stuff from source. But I don't have the time for that anymore. Hopefully I will sometime soon.
Re:SuSE - I second this (Score:2, Interesting)
Client or Server? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Trying to learn linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Slackware is a great learning distro because it's bare-bones. No cruft to get in the way. I know too many people who know Redhat inside and out, yet would be lost in twenty seconds with Debian. And vice versa.
(Of course, if the newbie wants to learn *unix* as opposed to just linux, then FreeBSD might be a good choice as well)
My weekend excursion (Score:3, Interesting)
It just so happens that I spent this last weekend trying to answer this very question. While I'm pretty comfortable with a low-level Linux distro (I use Debian 2.2r3), I have some potential clients who have older machines and far less technical knowledge.
So I took an old box (233Mhz Pentium-MMX, 160MB, 4.3GB HD, SoundBlaster 128 PCI, S3/VirgeGX, non-name MB) and tried several different non-commercial distros. The candidates were: Slackware 8.0, Mandrake 8.0, Debian 2.2r3.
Note that my analysis was from the standpoint of giving a distro to an uninitiated user -- someone who can drop Windows ME onto a machine with ease, but who has never installed Linux. The results were disturbing.
To begin with, *none* of the distros could automatically install my 4.3GB HD at its full capacity. In every case, no matter what the BIOS settings, I was forced to edit configuration files to get the "whole" drive. Such behavior isn't acceptable for a newbie (or even an expert in a hurry) -- especially since WinDoze has no trouble installing the drive as 4.3GB.
Mandrake had the prettiest installation of the three, and probably the easiest, with two exceptions: DrakX locked up when it tried to start configuring X, and it couldn't seem to install my network properly. I solved the X problme by booting from the HD and manually installing X. As for the network -- well, I can ping the router, I can ping Slashdot, but it won't ping any other systems on my LAN. Apache and FTP daemons won't load for some reason, and I have no clue... yes, it did find my RealTek 8029 (ne2k-pci driver) network card, and I can get to the web via Mozilla. Mandrake is still on the machine, so I'll try to figure things out again tonight. Just plain bizarre.
Next up was Slackware, which seemed to install simply before refusing to boot. I get the "LI" half of lilo, and the machine is dead. The docs suggest that such problems stem from the default kernels, which are compiled with lots of "stuff". So I tried reinstalling with different options, and I tried recompiling the kernel (2.2.19 (?) and 2.4.5) several ways, and I tried using the kernel Slackware employs in its setup (bare.i and bare245.i). No go; always the same result.And yes, I've recompiled more kernels than I care to remember; I know all about running lilo and such. Even if the recompiled kernel *had* worked, such technical wizardry is not acceptable for someone used to the ease of Windows.
If I booted from the CD and mounted my root on the HD, Slackware looked pretty good. The network worked; X worked. But I have no idea how to install it so it will boot from the HD directly.
Debian worked quite well, installing a small base system. I needed to make a minor change to the modules configuration to load the driver for the network card; otherwise, I had a simple, working Linux system on tap in less than 45 minutes, including X. The problem with Debian: The release distro (2.2r3) is a bit old and behind the times. On the other hand, so is my test machine, so maybe that's why they get along (grumpy old hardware?)
For my own workstations, I'll stick with Debian and my tried-and-true system of using it to provide a base install that I then upgrade manually as needed.
Some final thoughts:
Debian is great for those of us in the "know". Love my Debian. It installs small, has a simple and elegant package management scheme, and it expects me to know what I'm doing.
For "normal" folk, though, *none* of these distros would be adequate. Windows is such a joy to install -- you put the disk in, you answer a few questions, and you have a working computer. While Mandrake's install is very nice, it still requires technical expertise beyond the desire of most "users".
You might want to look at SuSE or Red Hat; perhaps they're better-suited to the beginner. I have both distros, but they're old copies (v6.2 for both). Red Hat pissed me off by using the 2.96 snapshot of the GCC package; I didn't have time to download and burn SuSE CDs.
In the end, I still don't see Linux as ready for the desktop or the "user" community. It still needs to mature a bit -- and as an "expert" (note the quotes), I'll stick with Debian for now. It has worked on *every* machine I've installed it on; I can't even say that of WinDoze.
well (Score:3, Interesting)
-lots of Deja.com questions
-lots of hardcopy books
Slackware: here's why (Score:2, Interesting)
Point number 2: is that it works. Perhaps moot, but it's worth mentioning. I've had slack machines running with 1 year uptime. It's on my laptop, desktop, firewall, and I use it at work as a terminal server.
Point number 3: is that it is a do it yourself distro. You may not like it at first. But sooner or later you'll want a CVS version of something, or a binary with non-standard options compiled in, or a program for which an RPM is not available and you are going to have to compile and manage that package yourself. In the mean time you can find lots of slackware packages at linuxmafia.org if you really need them.
I have tried the following distro's (multiple versions of most): Mandrake, Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux, Corel, Storm, and probably some others I'm forgetting. Personally, out of these, I prefer Slackware.
Anyway, it seems your move to Linux is more a move away from NT. Why to Linux specifically?