Which distribution for a newbie?

smeg_for_brains · 07-09-2009 8:13pm

I have been using Linux mint 5 for about a year now, mainly because of the previously stated comment about being able to play mp3 and various video formats out of the box. I had previously tried Ubuntu and Fedora but could not get the codecs for mp3 and vids because I was not able to connect to the net.
Using mint I simply switched my phon(SE W910i) to act asa modem, in firefox prefs clicke "auto detect proxy settings for this network" and presto, I was online.
I am perfecly happy using Mint 5 for these reasons.

jaqian · 07-10-2009 12:42am

+1 for Linux Mint.

LM is Ubuntu but more user friendly. It automatically recognised my Canon ip4200 printer, which didn't work in other distros, my zyxel wireless dongle and all my external harddrives and flash drives. It doesn't care if a drive is FAT or NTFS it just mounts them. Hassle free. And best of all you don't have to use the command line unless you want to.

Did I mention it is made in Ireland by a Frenchman? What more could you ask for

Rob (newb-ish)

Leman_Russ · 27-11-2009 5:23am

Not tried LM, but I wish I had now :P
Ubuntu was a Massive pain and a half to get my Broadcom 43xx Wireless Card and Microsoft Mouse working.
Of course the irony was, once I found the solution, it took me all of 30 seconds to fix it. The hard part was finding them

Flamed Diving · 24-12-2009 6:20pm

I have a Sierra Compass 888 mobile broadband modem. It does not seem to work with Ubuntu or Mint.

Can anyone think of a distro that this device works with? Does Linux always have such difficulty in installing simple USB devices?

Capt'n Midnight · 24-12-2009 8:09pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I have a Sierra Compass 888 mobile broadband modem. It does not seem to work with Ubuntu or Mint.

Can anyone think of a distro that this device works with? Does Linux always have such difficulty in installing simple USB devices?

Actually Linux is far better than most other OS's in supporting devices for which the manufacturer did not release a driver.

If there is no driver on the vendors website then complain to them.

Not sure if you can use ndis wrapper thingybuzzer on on it ?

at the terminal console type
lsusb

this will give the device an ID like 1d6b:0001
google the ID , it might suggest other drivers you can use.

TBH setting up a Hewuai E220 3G modem on ubuntu takes about 3 clicks and one of those is to pick which network you want to connect to based on your regional settings

Flamed Diving · 24-12-2009 9:55pm

I don't have a Huawei modem, thanks.

Mycroft H · 24-12-2009 11:02pm

the sierra wireless compass 888 should work out of the box in mint or ubuntu.

it does with me

Flamed Diving · 25-12-2009 12:26am

landyman wrote: »

the sierra wireless compass 888 should work out of the box in mint or ubuntu.

it does with me

Which version of Ubuntu?

*Note: Ubuntu 9.10 distribution is not supported with Sierra Wireless modems.

http://sierrawireless.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/500/session/L3NpZC9TNjViOERxag==/sno/0

Mycroft H · 25-12-2009 1:35am

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Which version of Ubuntu?

http://sierrawireless.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/500/session/L3NpZC9TNjViOERxag==/sno/0

Ubuntu 8.10 + 9.04 and 9.10

Mint 7 and 8, which are based on 9.04 and 9.10 ubuntu anyways and crunchbang linux.

Just plug it in and several seconds a screen will pop up asking would you like to set up a new wireless modem connection. Easy peasy.

worked on a msi and samgsung netbooks and a dell desktop.

Writing this from mint 8 at the moment

Flamed Diving · 25-12-2009 2:25am

Yeah, I plugged it in with Ubuntu 9.10 and Mint 8 and no pop-up arrived for me.

Doesn't seem to be consistent.

Mycroft H · 25-12-2009 2:53pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, I plugged it in with Ubuntu 9.10 and Mint 8 and no pop-up arrived for me.

Doesn't seem to be consistent.

Does it appear to be inconsistant with other usb devices?

Flamed Diving · 25-12-2009 3:15pm

landyman wrote: »

Does it appear to be inconsistant with other usb devices?

It would appear to be consistent with the statement of the manufacturer of the device in question.

_blank_ · 11-01-2010 7:53pm

Hi,

total Linux noob here.

just reading back in this threa, it would seem that Mint is the version to go for, if I want it to work fully when I install it.

I've a netgear wireless modem, do you fellas think there would be any problems there?

I've already downloaded Ubunti 9.10, and am about to burn the iso to a disk, does Mint have the same process of installation?

Oh, do I need to go into the laptop settings and change it to boot from the HD to DVDRom?

Thanks a bunch lads.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-01-2010 9:55pm

usually if you press F12 during the POST you get an option to choose to boot from the CD on that boot

use a network cable during the install (this goes for windows too , so you can pickup drivers on the interweb)

if wireless is not picked up
system - administration - hardware drivers

if still no joy then in terminal type
lsusb
and search the web for the device ID

_blank_ · 11-01-2010 9:59pm

Thanks for taking the time to reply

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

usually if you press F12 during the POST you get an option to choose to boot from the CD on that boot

ok, I'll try that.

It's an Acer 5610 laptop.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

use a network cable during the install (this goes for windows too , so you can pickup drivers on the interweb)

Oh, excellent tip, thanks. I wouldn't have thought of that. Great.

Will Mint/Ubuntu automatically recognise the network card then?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

if wireless is not picked up
system - administration - hardware drivers

if still no joy then in terminal type
lsusb
and search the web for the device ID

That's a bit over my head for the moment

Capt'n Midnight · 11-01-2010 10:09pm

This page contains old info as well, only try them if they still don't work two reboots after all you've applied all the updates.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/AcerAspire5610

_blank_ · 11-01-2010 10:14pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This page contains old info as well, only try them if they still don't work two reboots after all you've applied all the updates.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/AcerAspire5610

excellent, thanks again

_blank_ · 12-01-2010 4:18pm

I installed Mint.

It's working!

Wireless just...worked.

I can see all the music/video etc that was stored on XP.

Brilliant, I was ready to feck the laptop out.

Erbium · 15-02-2010 5:52am

I recently installed Mint!
Very easy to do with little to no problems, on the laptop that is! On the desktop though..I was having other issues

Any for the most part Mint was just plug & play!
Some nice features & over all I'm happy as can be with her!
Mint ftw!

TheDoc · 16-02-2010 11:04am

Had mint and went to ubuntu, mostly the same no big difference.

Enjoying it for the change of pace, but cant say im blown away, I'm probably not experiencing the full extent of linux, but so far so good.

source · 02-04-2010 4:22am

Going to install Ubuntu 9.10 on my laptop, will i need to back up the music and picture files i have on the computer before i do the install, will it wipe the drive or would i have to format it myself to do that? Also will it remove xp completely or will i have to delete that myself too?

ak27 · 02-04-2010 10:21pm

foinse wrote: »

Going to install Ubuntu 9.10 on my laptop, will i need to back up the music and picture files i have on the computer before i do the install, will it wipe the drive or would i have to format it myself to do that? Also will it remove xp completely or will i have to delete that myself too?

It probably wouldn't do you any harm to back up files you want to keep just case something messes up and you loose everything.

The install process could wipe the entire disk and re-format it if that's what you want. If you want to keep XP, it's possible to dual boot and have both XP and Ubuntu installed on the same hard drive. If you want to dual boot, what you need to do is shrink the partition XP is on. You'll then need to create two separate partitions for Ubuntu. One partition is a swap partition which should be about twice the size of your RAM. The second partition is the one you install Ubuntu on, I use an ext 4 partition for linux. The size of the second partition depends on what you want to install on your system, the minimum I'd set it to though is 10GB.

source · 02-04-2010 10:40pm

ak27 wrote: »

It probably wouldn't do you any harm to back up files you want to keep just case something messes up and you loose everything.

The install process could wipe the entire disk and re-format it if that's what you want. If you want to keep XP, it's possible to dual boot and have both XP and Ubuntu installed on the same hard drive. If you want to dual boot, what you need to do is shrink the partition XP is on. You'll then need to create two separate partitions for Ubuntu. One partition is a swap partition which should be about twice the size of your RAM. The second partition is the one you install Ubuntu on, I use an ext 4 partition for linux. The size of the second partition depends on what you want to install on your system, the minimum I'd set it to though is 10GB.

The plan is to remove xp completely, the only thing i'm worried about is that when i use the live cd everything just works, is this because the drivers are there in the background already on xp or because they are there in ubuntu 9.10? I'd really rather not have to try to download drivers for these again, especially seeing as this computer is my only access to the internet. so say if the driver for my wireless reciever is gone i'll have no way of downloading another one.

ak27 · 02-04-2010 11:16pm

foinse wrote: »

The plan is to remove xp completely, the only thing i'm worried about is that when i use the live cd everything just works, is this because the drivers are there in the background already on xp or because they are there in ubuntu 9.10? I'd really rather not have to try to download drivers for these again, especially seeing as this computer is my only access to the internet. so say if the driver for my wireless reciever is gone i'll have no way of downloading another one.

If you're hardware works while you're using the live cd, chances are it will be fine when you install it on you're hard drive. What you get on the live cd is usually what you'll see when you install it to you're hard drive.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-04-2010 11:51pm

foinse wrote: »

The plan is to remove xp completely, the only thing i'm worried about is that when i use the live cd everything just works, is this because the drivers are there in the background already on xp or because they are there in ubuntu 9.10? I'd really rather not have to try to download drivers for these again, especially seeing as this computer is my only access to the internet. so say if the driver for my wireless reciever is gone i'll have no way of downloading another one.

Live CD is live
it doesn't care what is on the hard drive, it doesn't even need a hard drive

the only windows drivers you may need in linux is if you have to use ndiswrapper for a wireless card , and that is only if the manufacturer of the card did not provide information for a driver to be written at no cost to them.

you can always connect the computer to the internet with a cable to download the driver, which you would have to do with a new install of windows too

what wireless card do you have ?

Oh yeah Ubuntu 10.4 is due out shortly ( 10=2010 and 4 = April )
it is supposedly quicker for some stuff, not sure if any wireless upgrades worth waiting for

source · 03-04-2010 12:39am

Thanks lads, that's helped me out no end, I kind of thought that would be the case but wasn't 100% sure.

Edit: thanks for all the help guys, I've made the switch and am talking to you now from within a fully installed ubuntu 9.10

spannerotoole · 09-07-2010 9:27pm

I would have to say Linux Mint every time.

It's perfect for beginners without doing everything for you.

It's an ubuntu based distro so it's got a really good repository.

Try it out, it's really nice. (Just get the main edition, not the universal edition)

Johnboy1951 · 10-07-2010 9:57pm

I would suggest

PCLinuxOS

Various flavours to choose from .... KDE, Gnome, Xfce, LXDE etc

Latest ISOs released this month.

I found it the most 'comfortable' of all distros I tried when moving from Windows - and I tried about 30 of them!

G-Money · 17-07-2010 5:02pm

I just installed Ubuntu 10.04 an hour or two ago on an old Dell laptop of mine (circa 2004). I have to say I'm impressed with how well it's running.

The last time I installed Ubuntu was a few years ago and it didn't recognise my NetGear wireless card but this time it picked it up itself and configured it. Connecting to the wireless network was easy enough as well.

I think the new Ubuntu software centre is a big improvement as well. The last time I installed Ubuntu, it didn't seem to have that feature. I know I had lots of issues before when trying to install anything at all. I never knew what to download or how to install it once I downloaded it. The packages seemed to be impossible to find and in general it was a nightmare.

I remember saying to a friend of mine that Linux would never take off and challenge Windows until it became easier for newbie's to use and easier to install software. I work in computer software myself but exclusively on Windows so I know almost nothing about Linux so I've a lot of knowledge of Windows but I found it tough moving to Linux despite what I knew. I guess that's understandable but at the same time, probably an indication that someone who doesn't know much about computers may have no chance.

Anyway so far it's working well. I'm using the Chromium browser on it now as I write this

Abelloid · 17-07-2010 11:06pm

I have just ditched Windows completely from the family PC, everything working as it should on Mint 9. Much happier now than I was with earlier episodes dabbling with Ubuntu. Goodbye Microsoft.

G-Money · 18-07-2010 12:40pm

Downloading Mint now. I liked Ubuntu 10.04 but I wasn't stunned by it's performance, even though everything worked more or less straight away.

VampiricPadraig · 22-07-2010 11:41pm

I might try mint at some stage.

I do not recommend Arch to ANYONE

rfrederick · 23-07-2010 7:10am

VampiricPadraig wrote: »

I do not recommend Arch to ANYONE

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Arch is great for those who want start out with a simple system, don't want to deal with large change management jumps associated with discrete releases (I'm fond of its rolling release concept) and are more used to a FreeBSD environment. However it is definitely not a distro for newbies; that's not the user base they're targeting.

ubuntulinux · 27-07-2010 8:58pm

***Mandriva 2010***
Runs like a formula 1 and very stable.

***Ubuntu***
Will get you from a to b every time and with an excellent background team in the pits,just not as quickly though.

Both excellent.;)

the_syco · 06-08-2010 12:31am

Hey all. Have an old Dell Latitude C400 with 256MB RAM, 30GB HDD, and a 1.2GHZ Pentium 3. Looking for a nix distro with a nice GUI so that I can browse the web with it, but also one that will allow me to learn nix.

Been thinking of getting Fedora, as I've used it before, but was wondering how would that run on the above specs?

spannerotoole · 06-08-2010 12:41am

There are other versions of mint, if you want speed and reliabilty go with mint xfce or lxde versions, much lighter and act pretty much the same as the main flavour of mint.

Mathiasb · 10-08-2010 11:09am

the_syco wrote: »

Hey all. Have an old Dell Latitude C400 with 256MB RAM, 30GB HDD, and a 1.2GHZ Pentium 3. Looking for a nix distro with a nice GUI so that I can browse the web with it, but also one that will allow me to learn nix.

Been thinking of getting Fedora, as I've used it before, but was wondering how would that run on the above specs?

I would use Archlinux, that would be sweet on the above specs. Perhaps a steep learning curve (just the installation, really, after that you're set), but it's well worth it. http://www.archlinux.org/

Naikon · 15-08-2010 5:46pm

rfrederick wrote: »

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Arch is great for those who want start out with a simple system, don't want to deal with large change management jumps associated with discrete releases (I'm fond of its rolling release concept) and are more used to a FreeBSD environment. However it is definitely not a distro for newbies; that's not the user base they're targeting.

Arch is dodgy because of the whole rolling release concept. Rolling release is too big a risk for a production server, or even a home system. I never got the feeling Arch was
well designed, simply because all the coreutils and everything else is upgraded daily, thus leading to the odd library problem. I once had to boot into runlevel 3 fix symlink problems
with libncurses following a Pacman -Syu. Stable distro my arse. Upgrading to the newest stuff on a regular basis is bound to lead to problems...

I would pick LFS, or Debian, or RedHat for that matter. FreeBSD is a joy to use in comparison to Arch, as the base utils are clearly seperated from the extra junk, therefore you don't
end up with simple libraries like ncurses causing a system to stall booting. Sorry, but you can't compare Arch and FreeBSD. Arch has some real gaping stability issues.

Mathiasb · 15-08-2010 5:55pm

Heh. I've been using Arch since 2007 and never seen such problems. Of course, if you're on testing updating daily, then things might break. Usually there are news on the front page if there are potential problems with an upgrade.

Naikon · 21-08-2010 5:23pm

Mathiasb wrote: »

Heh. I've been using Arch since 2007 and never seen such problems. Of course, if you're on testing updating daily, then things might break. Usually there are news on the front page if there are potential problems with an upgrade.

I take back what I said above. I have not used Arch in a few years, but it's very, very polished now. No breaks yet, and I am using stable + community. It's so good infact, I am now using it as my primary distro:pac:

Arch Linux + 1

Ghost Train · 21-08-2010 5:39pm

the_syco wrote: »

Hey all. Have an old Dell Latitude C400 with 256MB RAM, 30GB HDD, and a 1.2GHZ Pentium 3. Looking for a nix distro with a nice GUI so that I can browse the web with it, but also one that will allow me to learn nix.

Been thinking of getting Fedora, as I've used it before, but was wondering how would that run on the above specs?

Have been using debian with lxde on some old laptops recently and have found it really nice and fast.

Crunchbang really fast too, but bit slower to boot and connect to wifi

Mathiasb · 22-08-2010 11:11pm

Naikon wrote: »

I take back what I said above. I have not used Arch in a few years, but it's very, very polished now. No breaks yet, and I am using stable + community. It's so good infact, I am now using it as my primary distro:pac:

Arch Linux + 1

Good to hear

07-09-2010 9:31am

Been using Fedora 13 for the last week now... My first ever attempt at Linux and I like it. Apart from the effort involved with getting my media codecs, it runs very smooth on the little netbook I've been forced to downgrade to. Brother has win7 on a similar machine and i can't stand using it.

Just wondering though if there's much point in looking at ubuntu or any other distro? I miss the connectivity with my jailbroken itouch.. Is there any distro that can handle this?

Mathiasb · 07-09-2010 10:15am

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wondering though if there's much point in looking at ubuntu or any other distro? I miss the connectivity with my jailbroken itouch.. Is there any distro that can handle this?

Hm? What is that exactly?

I'm sure you'll find some answers if you Google, or search in the Ubuntu forums.

BopNiblets · 12-09-2010 3:08pm

From 10.04 Ubuntu is supposed to support iPods/Touches, iPhones, etc out of the box, but I can't vouch for jailbroken ones or normal ones for that matter as I don't own any Apple devices.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/02/28/ubuntu-10-04-supports-iphone-and-ipod-touch-out-of-the-box/

Edit: Actually I tried my brothers iTouch just now and it was picked up by Rhythmbox in Linux Mint 9, dunno about synching or whatever as I said, not familiar with them.

Oracle · 12-09-2010 3:25pm

I would recommend Trisquel for any computer user new to GNU/Linux. I have used Ubuntu, it's good, although I find Trisquel simpler, easier to use and more intuitive. What I particularly like about Trisquel is it's look and feel. It's clean and simple, it doesn't get in my way and isn't distracting. This is one of the reasons I'd recommend it to new users.

Also with Trisquel, everything is where you'd expect it to be, so you can get up and running straight away. Installation is a cinch, you can go from disc to desktop in 20 minutes, using the live cd, or try it out on your computer first.

There's a web site with more details, screenshots and the live CD download: http://trisquel.info/

evercloserunion · 30-11-2010 5:28am

It's interesting to see how things change over time. Ubuntu wasn't mentioned once in the first three pages of this thread.

Pygmalion · 01-12-2010 6:44pm

evercloserunion wrote: »

It's interesting to see how things change over time. Ubuntu wasn't mentioned once in the first three pages of this thread.

Well it didn't actually exist until about post 45 :P, at least according to the initial release date on its Wikipedia page.

evercloserunion · 01-12-2010 6:53pm

Didn't know it was so young, but it's still remarkable that it has displaced the other distros mentioned at the start of this thread as *the* distro for newbies.

Pygmalion · 02-06-2011 1:31pm

A CHALLENGER APPEARS.

Which distribution for a newbie?

Comments