Which distribution for a newbie?

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.

ImpossibleDuck · 28-06-2011 8:31pm

Didn't want to start a whole thread on this so can someone answer this:

I've installed Ubuntu alongside Win 7 and I like it enough to adopt it as my main OS. Can I just uninstall Windows 7 and sell my product key? And use Ubuntu alone?

Also, can you buy laptops that don't have an OS installed?

Pygmalion · 28-06-2011 9:35pm

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

Didn't want to start a whole thread on this so can someone answer this:

I've installed Ubuntu alongside Win 7 and I like it enough to adopt it as my main OS. Can I just uninstall Windows 7 and sell my product key? And use Ubuntu alone?

You can do so, but I can't really imagine much people would pay for a Windows 7 product key from you, and it might be an OEM key or something.

Easiest way to uninstall Windows would just be to do a fresh install of Ubuntu and give it the entire disk (after backing up anything you need).
You could also try delete and resize/move the partitions around.

Also, can you buy laptops that don't have an OS installed?

Generally no, some places will do it, particularly online shops, but you won't be able to, for example, just walk into your local PC World and get one without an OS. Computer shops usually get paid to throw in a bunch of free trials/adware/spyware with computers they sell.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-06-2011 11:58pm

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

Can I just uninstall Windows 7 and sell my product key?

An OEM license is locked to the motherboard it was supplied with and lives or dies with it.

READ YOUR LICENSE - EULA !!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Khannie · 29-06-2011 12:48pm

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

Also, can you buy laptops that don't have an OS installed?

If you buy from dell, you used to be able to get a (small) refund if you never activated the windows licence.

BopNiblets · 30-06-2011 11:48am

Komplett have laptops without an OS, not sure which model.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-07-2011 6:18pm

Khannie wrote: »

If you buy from dell, you used to be able to get a (small) refund if you never activated the windows licence.

But it would affect the resale value of the laptop ,something to consider

h57xiucj2z946q · 01-10-2011 12:20pm

Didn't read through the thread, but was Linux Mint mentioned?

_blank_ · 01-10-2011 12:29pm

Camilla Mealy Signal wrote: »

Didn't read through the thread, but was Linux Mint mentioned?

I used Mint to "rescue" a laptop that XP just stopped working on, and have found it incredibly easy to use, out of the box. It connected straight away to my wireless router for net access, can play video files with no problems.

The only thing I find hard is installing anything that isn't part of the Software Manager.

I've also played around with Jolicloud, and it looks ok for basic stuff like web browsing.

human 19 · 23-10-2011 2:57am

I use mint out of laziness. They have made it so easy to use. They base it on Ubuntu but, unlike Ubuntu, dont release their latest version until they can iron out most of the bugs that come supplied with a new Ubuntu.

I am toying with going back to Debian which is the root distro for Ubuntu and Mint but 1 simple little litte thing makes me continue to favour Mint over Debian... the fact that I can run prorams like the file manager as root by typing "sudo dolphin" or whatever, thus allowing me to make changes to file much more easily than in Debian.

After a few years of experementation, I have got to the stage where I just want to get things done easily.

Jagera · 27-10-2011 9:28am

human 19 wrote: »

After a few years of experementation, I have got to the stage where I just want to get things done easily.

Same as me really. I changed to Linux about 2 years ago, tried 4 or 5 distros, got all into using the terminal, playing with all the functions, then after a few months just dropped it all and I cruise along with Mint now. I have Ubuntu on the netbook, haven't upgraded that since 10.04.

I do think though, that I will come back to the terminal again, because when I do use it, I just relish the challenge and power of what you can do in there.

Which distribution for a newbie?

Comments