Which distribution for a newbie?

Dustpuppy · 17-09-2004 6:58pm

Take a look at Yoper and you can see that it is another Suse. And Suse is ****. God for install and leave it without changing anything.

RE*AC*TOR · 17-09-2004 7:54pm

I agree that suse isn't great from my personal experience, but I truely like yoper. Its faster out of the box than fedore, mandrake or suse. I've had fewer problems/errors etc. I think for a newbie its perfect, synaptic package manger is very intuitive. Then there's the apple-ish yopperconf - a child could use it.

CuLT · 18-09-2004 1:53am

I'm a Linux noob too, though I have a mate two doors down who knows his stuff fairly well to give me a hand

.

Installed Debian SARGE there a couple of days ago. My main worry was the whole dual OS shenannigans, but the option to have a boot loader installed was nice.

I was still worried I'd feck my partitions up all through the install though

. Only problem I have now is the damn resolution, I must have missed something in the install process because the fecker won't go above 800x600 (having been fairly sure I set it to 1600x1200).

/me googles for the likely simple solution.

Dustpuppy · 18-09-2004 3:45pm

At the moment i'm making a CD with a complete gentoo stage 3 on it. When it's finished it can be used for boot and setup a very easy system without having any known of linux. As soon i have finished the CD i will inform you all.

Sarunas · 18-09-2004 3:45pm

CuLT wrote:

I was still worried I'd feck my partitions up all through the install though . Only problem I have now is the damn resolution, I must have missed something in the install process because the fecker won't go above 800x600 (having been fairly sure I set it to 1600x1200)

You want to change resolution in X or in console?

CuLT · 19-09-2004 12:18am

I wanted to do it in X, actually, I think I have resolution sorted by editing the X config, now the only problem is the refresh rate, 60Hz at 1280x1024 is a bit annoying.

I don't think my graphics card was installed properly, it shows up as Generic, it's a GeForce4. 3D acceleration would be nice.

Dustpuppy · 19-09-2004 9:35am

You have 3 tools for setup the xserver:
dexconf
xf86config
XF86Setup
Try all of them. I don't use normaly debian on PC, only on my old mac and i do all config by myself.

Cake Fiend · 20-09-2004 7:19pm

man XF86Config - all the info you need.

flamegrill · 20-09-2004 11:13pm

Lads less of the "mine is bigger than yours" type of Posts. The thread starter asked what our opinions were on what is newbie friendly.

In my opinion, being well versed in Unices, I consider Redhat type distros the easiest. However having using slackware for years since very early versions I love it, I also hate it

- there are many package management systems for it also, slapt-get and swaret are two.

Apt-get is also available for Redhat/Fedora and makes installing things very simple. Using redhat will give you an insite into the world of linux and it will pad it for you

, making it less stress full. Slackware/debian are a bit more raw and you need to take it slow and get stuck in. At the end of the day the idea is to get used to particular apps, which are common to them all and then you can work with any distro.

Paul

connie00 · 25-09-2004 10:32pm

I think if your not sure if you'll like Linux a bootable distro such as knoppix or mandrake might be worth checking out first. After that for ease of use and installation of harware and software any of the popular distros such as Redhat, Suse or Mandrake would be the handiest for a newbie. Personally I like Suse.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-09-2004 1:06pm

If you have more than 700MB free on a FAT 16/32 partition have a look at this.
http://www.knoppix.net/docs/index.php/PoorMansInstall
ie. loading linux from a CD image on the HDD - faster than a CD and still doesn't affect your partitions etc.

Or if you have ~4GB free on the HDD
Boot from the hdd - into a console and sudo knoppix-installer
http://www.knoppix.net/docs/index.php/KnoppixInstaller

versa · 30-09-2004 8:38pm

Out of all the distros that I have tried I find Xandros one of the easiest for me I also liked mepis and Suse. Have a look at www.distrowatch.org and www.xandros.com

Nick_oliveri · 28-10-2004 5:02pm

Good thread, im goin with knoppix, i found red hat (8) kind of annoying.
Why are most going for ease rather than the ability to learn a good stable distro for future reference?

PixelPixie · 05-11-2004 7:47pm

You could add RedHat 9 (Shrike) to the list - I installed it from the CDs from scratch without a hitch and it runs like a dream.

blacknight wrote:

If you are new to linux I would recommend you try one of the following:
Fedora
Mandrake
Suse
Whitebox (redhat enterprise clone)

They all come with easy to use graphical installers and will guide you through the entire installation process.

DO NOT try:
Slackware
Gentoo
Debian

Although you may hear a lot about the above they are not really suited to beginners.

paulinimus · 23-11-2004 12:08pm

I reccomend it because it does not ship with any corrupting 3rd. party software. To be honest though, if you are a very clever person I would go right ahead and install Slackware. It will be the water for your sponge so to speak - you'll learn lots about Linux..as long as you are patient..

If you do install Slackware, or Fedora, make sure to download and install the MPlayer binaries /source (great Hungarian movie player)
It has all the codecs to play pretty much any movie, but they have to be downloaded seperately. I would advide that you stay away from Gnome -use KDE instead.

aidan_walsh · 23-11-2004 12:10pm

paulinimus wrote:

I reccomend it because it does not ship with any corrupting 3rd. party software.

I don't follow what you mean by this.

paulinimus · 24-11-2004 3:55pm

As you may know, some of the big distributions (Mandrake, SuSE) include software that is provided for free "as in beer" yet is not OSS. For example Real player. Many of us use Linux not just because its a great OS but also because it is free "as in speech" and because the source code is available to the public. 3rd. party software does not tend to have this level of freedom. Im not trying to start an argument, but from a political correctnedd point of view I would direct any newbie to use an easy to set up and use distro which is in the spirit of OSS.
Ideally, Gentoo is a great choice because it is non profit organisation, but Gentoo is more for the intermediate to advanced user.

billy3sheets · 01-12-2004 1:33am

I've used the RedHat & Fedora 1 & 2 distros. No real probs with install or getting running. Probs are all around H/W. I have a 2 or 3 year old Dell Dimension 4300 system.
Probs with the Linksys 10/100 card. Changed to a 3Com one which is better supported.
Major probs with the Connexant based Winmodem. Got a free driver, but will only run at 14K !
Lexmark Z33 printer has also been a major pain to get drivers installed & running for.

Seems to me good tips on H/W are:
Use 3Com N/W cards
Use HP printers
Use an external 56K modem (3Com/USR, Multitech/Zoom/Hayes)

I don't know if any distro is better than another in terms of support for this kind of H/W.

nadir · 22-12-2004 11:42am

I dont know how people can use rpm, it's just so ..... useless.

Is it just that ye guys have never used portage or apt ???
or is there just loads about rpm I dont know??

Eoghan-psych · 07-06-2005 2:31pm

Fenster wrote:

Using Linux is frequently challenging, more so as most of the guides on the net are utter tripe. They assume a level of expertise that just won't be there with new users or provide half-assed explanations. What's that point in telling us to enter command xyz without telling us why we use that one.

Ultimately, that's the problem with Linux.

Using XP, if I want new software I click on *one* file, the one called [rather cryptically] "Install" or "setup" or even, the horror, "program x's installer". That's it - it does the rest. It asks where I want to stick the program, whether or not I want icons in certain places and away I go. In the unlikely scenario that the program needs software I don't have, it will say so. Then it will install it for me with a few clicks of the mouse. Easy peasy lemon squeezee, >90% of the time.

Arguments can be made in favour of the esoteric workings of Linux in this regard [stops workers buggering up their office systems, for example] but for home users? As long as people have to start punching the wall because they need to enter yet another password for the 47th time while typing in "commands xyz" [for reasons understood or otherwise] Linux will never make significant progress among ordinary users.

Yes, MS is an evil global corporation bent on destroying the world [well, almost] but MY GOD their software is easier for the average person to use. Why? Because programmers have to code a *product* - they're not just fannying about trying to play one-upmanship games with other coders.

Very few non commercial software providers match this. One notable exception is the mozilla project - simple, straightforward, and *better* than the alternative. Not just cheaper, or smaller, or prettier, or less capitalistic [delete as appropriate] but *better*. Why? because the code writers stopped prancing about and got on with making a program for the *mainstream*, that *mainstream* users can use, and more importantly *appreciate*.

The whole Linux experience should be like that, from install through setup, login, day to day use and adding new stuff. It's not.

Rant over.
[/edit]
I should point out that I do use Linux - it's stable, secure [on multiple levels] and free.

oscarBravo · 07-06-2005 3:34pm

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Using XP, if I want new software I click on *one* file, the one called [rather cryptically] "Install" or "setup" or even, the horror, "program x's installer". That's it - it does the rest. It asks where I want to stick the program, whether or not I want icons in certain places and away I go. In the unlikely scenario that the program needs software I don't have, it will say so. Then it will install it for me with a few clicks of the mouse. Easy peasy lemon squeezee, >90% of the time.

Using Ubuntu, I open the Synaptic package manager, locate the software I want, and tell it to install it for me. It doesn't ask me where I want it (I want it on my computer, foo'!) it doesn't ask me about icons (it generally puts an entry on the appropriate menu). In the fairly common scenario that the program needs software I don't have, it will install that for me also with a similar lack of fuss.

Of course, being a somewhat experience Linux user, I could go off and start doing it the hard way with downloads and compiles and whatnot, but why bother?

Can I respectfully suggest that you keep up with recent developments in Linux before you criticise it?

mneylon · 07-06-2005 6:19pm

Eoghan-psych - try ubuntu before you criticise linux.
unlike windows, that requires special drivers for just about everything, Ubuntu will happily recognise most hardware you can throw at it

The other major advantage it has over windows is that it doesn't come with any hidden costs.

And though you could play with installing stuff the hard way you can do it using a simple package manager as already mentioned

Capt'n Midnight · 07-06-2005 6:52pm

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Ultimately, that's the problem with Linux.

Using XP, if I want new software I click on *one* file, the one called [rather cryptically] "Install" or "setup" or even, the horror, "program x's installer". That's it - it does the rest. It asks where I want to stick the program, whether or not I want icons in certain places and away I go. In the unlikely scenario that the program needs software I don't have, it will say so. Then it will install it for me with a few clicks of the mouse. Easy peasy lemon squeezee, >90% of the time.

RANT I can remember the days when there were two different programs in windows - one called INSTALL that installed an app and another which appeared once installation was complete called SETUP which changed the settings. Very unambiguous, yes there are many people who could benefit from that. The install process you describe is very complicated for MAC users. (drag the litte picture of the printer across if it hasn't already installed itself) And there are lots of clickies in windows that invoke cries "of course I'm sure I've clicked Iagree/ OK/next/finish(!)/ok/continue/exit 15 times already!"

have you used apt get install ? - in the windows world you have to find the file first searching web sites for the latest update, trials / demo ware / ads / trying to figure out which is the latest version / and then which dependencies to add.

Horses for courses, but the average windows or linux users PC needs some settings teaked before they can use it. In the case of linux this may be setting up printers / internet connection / icons that look like windows icons. In the case of windows it's installing AV, firewall , spybot etc. etc. etc. turning on always create backup copies, setting up auto updates - the end users can setup the printers.
One big difference is casual copying of programs, what percentage of windows home users users are beaking the law by using pirated software or shareware/demoware beyond the 30 days ?

Windows costs more but has better hardware support for cheaper devices.

rogue-entity · 31-07-2005 12:35am

For total newbies the following distros are a good choice of easy-to-use and eyecandy.

SuSE, Mandrake, Xandros. SuSE being one of the easiest. SuSE and Xandros both include drivers for common Winmodems which means you will be able to get online when you do not have Broadband.

For more serious users or people whishing to setup a server, the best distros to use are:

Gentoo, Slackware, Ubuntu. You can also try FreeBSD which is not linux but is very similar.

thebman · 28-08-2005 12:37am

I'm not saying Ubuntu is the god of Desktop Linux distro's but Ubuntu is the god of Desktop Linux Distro's. Stable as Debian and easy to use like XP/OSX. Synaptic is a god send and works well, hardware detection is unbelievable, it's completely free (they'll even send you the cd free), you can install extra software via the Ubuntu unoffical software cd 2 which will install realplayer and mp3 codecs etc..., it comes with Gnome but if you prefer KDE you can get Kubuntu or if you want kde in regular ubuntu you can get it via Synaptic. There are no major disadvantages that I can see to Ubuntu as a distro. It's easy to use, not bloated and free in every sense of the word.

They are also working on a way to easily install drivers but for the moment the howto's in the forums are excellent. I was talking to them and they are working on a way for a program for auto installing drivers using terminal commands but with a gui front end for the user so they don't have to type anything, all you do is click and commands are auto entered for you.

netron · 30-08-2005 9:37am

oscarBravo wrote:

Using Ubuntu, I open the Synaptic package manager, locate the software I want, and tell it to install it for me. It doesn't ask me where I want it (I want it on my computer, foo'!) it doesn't ask me about icons (it generally puts an entry on the appropriate menu).

it doesnt - you have to type "killall gnome-panel" to force the gnome startbar thingy to reload and then newly installed program appears as a menu item.

Ubuntu is a great distro , but it just isnt quite "there" just yet for complete newbies (text based installer for example - and that partitioning stuff - v.scarey for a total noob)

if you want a newbie distro, with a big community around it, go for Mandrake/Mandriva
installer is a piece of cake , and the distro is KDE focused (KDE is generally a way better window manager for total noobs coming over from Windows). Ubuntu's KDE version - Kubuntu - has a KDE menu that is a total nightmare. Mandrake's KDE menu system is polished and refined and dead easy.

Go for Mandrake , tip your toes in , and then give the other distros a whirl.

familyguy · 01-09-2005 6:11pm

i'm also a newbie to Linux. I've used Live CD versions of Knoppix and Slax on my laptop with no problems, but I now want a permanent distribution on it. Can anyone recommend a good distro for a laptop which isn't too big?

Machine in question is a Dell Latitude CPt running Windows 95 with 128MB RAM, just over 3 GB of ROM shared over 3 HDDs

Ideally the distribution should be easy to install and use, small enough to fit in a partition of 1GB (only system files have to fit here, I can save programs and files elsewhere), easy to add packages to, and it should support Ethernet and removable USB disks without too much hassle. A tall order?

I won't want to do anything too complicated with it, just use OpenOffice.org maybe the GIMP and play some music and video

Any Ideas?

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 01-09-2005 6:14pm

Try ubuntu, you can free install cds over the internet at http://shipit.ubuntulinux.org/ so you dont have to download and burn, its very easy to use. CDsmight take a while to be delivered. Also it comeswith a live boot cd so you can try it out without installing

ishnid · 01-09-2005 10:52pm

netron wrote:

(KDE is generally a way better window manager for total noobs coming over from Windows)

I've seen this claim being made in a few places but I've yet to see anybody giving any reasons why. Care to elaborate?

Goodshape · 03-09-2005 2:28pm

Linspire is free for the next few days.

Usually costs around $50 I think.. reason being that it includes some licenced components (Java, Windows Media, Flash, etc.) which should make it the most n00b friendly distro out there.

Haven't used it myself, but sure I may as well grab it all the same

Which distribution for a newbie?

Comments