What Linux Distro should I try?

[Mitch D]

I am about to open a can of worms here but I am starting to research Linux distro's for a furture system I am looking to build (next month to two month time frame).

I have tried Red Hat, Mandrake and Corel Linux in the past but always walked away after a short period of time. I have finally decided to create a dedicated Linux box but I am not sure which distro to try. I will admit I am a novice at Linux and will need a distro that won't try to kill me during install.

[nuka_t]

yoper.com

fastest of all distros, installer is average.


mepis.org

super easy installer and all-around good distro.

the ones you posted

redhat-slow, uses rpm's, which suck and are harder to install than deb's(mepis uses debs and yoper uses rpm's created to work like debs)

mandrake-kinda annoying propriety stuff, also slow, also uses rpm. although it has better management than redhat.

suse-great looking, but EXTREMELY slow, also uses rpm's.

for comparison, yoper took me 2 minutes and 40 seconds to install), mepis on the same computer took 20 minutes, and SuSe took well over an hour. i installed mandrake and redhat in virtual pc in windows, so that had an effect on performance obviously.

be aware, its hard to get ppc's working with linux. i havent tried yet, but it is possible.

for your system, make ABSOLUTELY SURE you buy an nVidia card. ATI drivers and performance sucks in linux. i bought a 9600xt and i really regret it. while it kicks ass in windows, im using software acceleration right now in linux cause i can get it to work for the life of me. there is a petition for better ati drivers in linux, so far its got over 15,000 votes, and its only been going for a couple weeks.

[bigkingfun]

I've tried various distributions and actually found I like Debian the best. It's a little more techie oriented, but it was one of the only ones I've tried that hasn't given me grief with network card drivers. I downloaded the install floppies and ran the install right off the internet.

The thing I liked about it was that I actually had to learn how to do a lot of things myself, rather than rely on tools that are provided with the distribution. I've tried Mandrake, Red Hat and Suse at various times, but have pretty much settled on Debian.

[juni]

Another vote for debian

[JvanEkris]

Well, i think it really depends on your use. I'm an admin on a bulletin board (both vBulletin Admin as server admin) and we use Debian there. Extremely stable OS, reliable. Not a bad word about it.

However, when using newer hardware i always liked Fedora Core (successor of Red hat). It's a bit more up to date with respect with drivers. I agree that it is heavy, and when using GNOME or KDE user interface it is a bit slower (but faster than Windows XP). However, i do not recognize the problems mentioned with RPM's. As i see it, RPM's are working great as long as you need normal applications/drivers. One disadvantage is that it usually has some dependencies. However, when you use apt-get, all these dependencies are solved automatically. Therefor i see it as a good distro for beginning Linux users....

I agree with nuka_t that NVIDIA cards are the ones to have. NVIdia provides good drivers is working supurb with Linux. Other types of cards could be a road to disaster. Getting some hardware to work is a nightmare when you are dependent on someone to code the driver for you and he has no access to that particular card. I used to wait, nowadays i bring the card back and buy a good one.....

Jaap

[Darius Wey]

Give Fedora (http://fedora.redhat.com) a go. It works very well. If you want something quick and easy, there's also Knoppix.

If in doubt of which distribution to try out, you can always run it in a virtual PC (you can try Microsoft's Virtual PC - they offer a trial edition if you don't own such PC emulating software). A word of warning: Fedora has problems running on Virtual PC although there are ways around it. It may have already been fixed, but I'm not sure as I haven't checked for updates in a while.

[Kowalski]

i have tried red hat, suse, mandrake and slackware, and i am never gonna go back! linuc sucks!!!

[Darius Wey]

i have tried red hat, suse, mandrake and slackware, and i am never gonna go back! linuc sucks!!!

Why?

[Jon Westfall]

i have tried red hat, suse, mandrake and slackware, and i am never gonna go back! linuc sucks!!!

Why?

Us Linux Evangelists are often quick (at least in my experience) to wonder why people abandon it when we find so much to love in it. I admit, I'm curious why Kowalski dropped it as well, but I bet it had something to do with one (or all) of the following:

* Lack of commercial-grade applications available in stores (Before you go telling me "But the stuff is all free!", think about it. When have you seen a developer or company put half as much effort into their open source endevours as their commerical properties. Its nice to program open source, and rewarding, but it doesn't pay the bills unless you find a grant or big name to fund you)
* Lack of hardware support (Although this is getting better)
* Lack of Linux Versions of essential windows software (I need some windows-only stuff for work).
* Difficulty in use (Even with KDE or Gnome, the learning curve on linux is still pretty stiff. Nothing like "Hit Start")
* Helpful but extremely opinionated user community (how many times have you seen someone get flamed in a linux community for daring to say windows is better in any respect - its not as often as it used to be, but the communities can be hostile to newbies).
* Difficulty Obtaining It (If you don't have broadband, your stuck ordering it of the web somewhere or buying an extremely overpriced store distro. When one of the selling points of an OS is "Its Free!", you have a hard time convincing people to pay for it in any way).
* No native PPC support.
* No Native MSIE (Some say its a blessing, but many sites are still optimized for IE)
* No native way to program ASP (for developers out there (Although they shouldn't be using it anyway - PHP / MySQL / Apache rocks!))
* Difficulty in installing programs (Even with RPMs or Debs in some cases)
* Difficulty in upgrading programs.
* Time consuming to recompile programs / kernels for more features.


That's just what I thought of off the top of my head. Don't get me wrong, I love linux and personally use SuSE, Redhat, and Knoppix. Linux just doesn't appeal to the bulk of computer users yet.

[Darius Wey]

i have tried red hat, suse, mandrake and slackware, and i am never gonna go back! linuc sucks!!!

Why?

Us Linux Evangelists are often quick (at least in my experience) to wonder why people abandon it when we find so much to love in it. I admit, I'm curious why Kowalski dropped it as well, but I bet it had something to do with one (or all) of the following:

* Lack of commercial-grade applications available in stores (Before you go telling me "But the stuff is all free!", think about it. When have you seen a developer or company put half as much effort into their open source endevours as their commerical properties. Its nice to program open source, and rewarding, but it doesn't pay the bills unless you find a grant or big name to fund you)
* Lack of hardware support (Although this is getting better)
* Lack of Linux Versions of essential windows software (I need some windows-only stuff for work).
* Difficulty in use (Even with KDE or Gnome, the learning curve on linux is still pretty stiff. Nothing like "Hit Start")
* Helpful but extremely opinionated user community (how many times have you seen someone get flamed in a linux community for daring to say windows is better in any respect - its not as often as it used to be, but the communities can be hostile to newbies).
* Difficulty Obtaining It (If you don't have broadband, your stuck ordering it of the web somewhere or buying an extremely overpriced store distro. When one of the selling points of an OS is "Its Free!", you have a hard time convincing people to pay for it in any way).
* No native PPC support.
* No Native MSIE (Some say its a blessing, but many sites are still optimized for IE)
* No native way to program ASP (for developers out there (Although they shouldn't be using it anyway - PHP / MySQL / Apache rocks!))
* Difficulty in installing programs (Even with RPMs or Debs in some cases)
* Difficulty in upgrading programs.
* Time consuming to recompile programs / kernels for more features.


That's just what I thought of off the top of my head. Don't get me wrong, I love linux and personally use SuSE, Redhat, and Knoppix. Linux just doesn't appeal to the bulk of computer users yet.

Yeah I agree. I've tried to get a few people to give Linux a shot, and I find that if you don't know what you're doing or have no idea about the way Linux is structured, it's a safe bet that Windows is a place to call home. I run Linux and Windows and love them both for their own reasons. :D

[Underwater Mike]

I've tried Knoppix, SuSE and Mandrake. Biggest problem for me, as a total Linux noob, is installing and configuring. Even with tools like YAST, installation is a nightmare compared to Windows. Having to edit config files and the like is great if you're interested in doing so, but Linux would spread a lot faster if everything was configurable from a point-and-click interface. :roll:

[Darius Wey]

I've tried Knoppix, SuSE and Mandrake. Biggest problem for me, as a total Linux noob, is installing and configuring. Even with tools like YAST, installation is a nightmare compared to Windows. Having to edit config files and the like is great if you're interested in doing so, but Linux would spread a lot faster if everything was configurable from a point-and-click interface. :roll:

The concept of Linux revolves around the fact that it is essentially open-source. You can freely manipulate the core to your liking, which is why installations of software seem like "a n00b's worst nightmare". If Linux did not have this "benefit", the concept of open-source would die off, and Linux would essentially be a Windows in a Penguin disguise.

I can see your point, but the so-called "hassle" of installing programs in its current form is more of a "shining point" of Linux. Give it some time. Ask friends who are Linux regulars. Look at Linux sites on the net. And with time, you will understand how to do a lot of core functions on Linux, and it will become your next best friend. 8)

Knoppix or Slackware are usually good starting points for n00b-ies.

[JvanEkris]

When have you seen a developer or company put half as much effort into their open source endevours as their commerical properties. Its nice to program open source, and rewarding, but it doesn't pay the bills unless you find a grant or big name to fund you).Do NOT underestimate the power of a dedicated man that want's something to work just because it is a cool thing. On the other hand: do not overestimate the guy who just does some programming because it pays the bills. There are people building small aeroplanes in their garage, doing this because they like it. This is the primary moter behind the development of OpenSource. Although there are no guarantees (but in companies there also few), it can move mountains: see GIMP, Scribus and Linux itself.

I have seen supurb implementations in the open source community by extremely professional developpers, just as a finger excersise. For example the bluetooth drivers for Linux, the IPv6 implementation, XviD, GIMP, Scriple, OpenOffice, Mplayer etc. show that this way of working is capable of producing some very big things without people being payed for their work.

This has some disadvantages, like software not being able to cope with specific hardware, just because the developper does not have any access to the hardware it concerns or he has no time........

The concept of Linux revolves around the fact that it is essentially open-source. You can freely manipulate the core to your liking, which is why installations of software seem like "a n00b's worst nightmare". If Linux did not have this "benefit", the concept of open-source would die off, and Linux would essentially be a Windows in a Penguin disguise.I have to disagree with you. Although the possibility to modification and configuration are essential to the open source-community, they should NOT become a necessity (i.e. a burden to the new user). Personally i hate the fact that to install an infrared driver (LIRC) i have to install a complete development environment, the Kernel source code and recompile the kernel. This is not something i like to do, just to get a driver working. However, may better distro's recognize most hardware out of the box and have a lot of applications with them, making installation relatively easy.
I can see your point, but the so-called "hassle" of installing programs in its current form is more of a "shining point" of Linux. Give it some time. Ask friends who are Linux regulars. Look at Linux sites on the net. And with time, you will understand how to do a lot of core functions on Linux, and it will become your next best friend.The thing that annoys me most is the dependencies of applications on components that are not included. try to install something like MPlayer and Xine by hand and you spend an evening finding other components where these applicions depend on......

Jaap

[Darius Wey]

The concept of Linux revolves around the fact that it is essentially open-source. You can freely manipulate the core to your liking, which is why installations of software seem like "a n00b's worst nightmare". If Linux did not have this "benefit", the concept of open-source would die off, and Linux would essentially be a Windows in a Penguin disguise.

I have to disagree with you. Although the possibility to modification and configuration are essential to the open source-community, they should NOT become a necessity (i.e. a burden to the new user). Personally i hate the fact that to install an infrared driver (LIRC) i have to install a complete development environment, the Kernel source code and recompile the kernel. This is not something i like to do, just to get a driver working. However, may better distro's recognize most hardware out of the box and have a lot of applications with them, making installation relatively easy.

I understand what you're saying. When Linux first came out, it was something intended for advanced users. Now that popularity of Linux has shot up, there is now an increasing trend of new users to sample it out. Sure it is a hassle to install drivers, but Linux cannot 100% accommodate for both beginners and advanced users simultaneously. That is why you have to make that offset and instead stick with the same kind of Linux concept, and attempt to well inform beginner users of the basics of Linux. There is an increasing trend for beginner packages of Linux to come with copious amounts of help guides and wizards to get the basic user started. There are even other software components out there to help get the native Windows user started. Sure, it's not perfect, but the fact that it remains free and highly modifiable is what makes Linux a favourable distribution for advanced users. Heck, even some Microsoft servers run Linux due to its highly modifiable and stable form!

I can see your point, but the so-called "hassle" of installing programs in its current form is more of a "shining point" of Linux. Give it some time. Ask friends who are Linux regulars. Look at Linux sites on the net. And with time, you will understand how to do a lot of core functions on Linux, and it will become your next best friend.

The thing that annoys me most is the dependencies of applications on components that are not included. try to install something like MPlayer and Xine by hand and you spend an evening finding other components where these applicions depend on......

Jaap

That I agree with you, but for the same reasons as I've discussed about Linux's intent to be highly modifiable, that is why things like this can be seen as such a hassle. Sure, I don't really like it much either, but that's the way Linux exists at the moment. 8)

[Mitch D]

Somehow I figured I was opening a can of worms when I did up this post. :wink:

I appreciate the suggestions and I am checking out all the options that everyone is giving me so keep them coming. I will say I am not a computer newbie by any stretch of the imagination but I have limited myself to mainly Microsoft based OS's so I do need something that I can configure but that is not going to beat the cr@p out of me as I am trying to install it.

Although after reading some of the posts I am glad I switched from a ATI card to a Nvidia FX5200 recently as that is one headache I had not thought about (drivers)

[Mitch D]

yoper.com

fastest of all distros, installer is average.



Hmmm... just checking out the screen shots of yoper and noticed that Yoper control panel looks very much like the Mac OS.x control panel...

Not a bad thing... just interesting

[Kowalski]

dadarkmcse, thank you, you saved me lots of typing, but i want to add some more:
*there is no good ide for programmers of any language, none is near visual studio
*most of vital programs are only working on windows machines, very little companies are writing drivers for peripherals for linux machines.
*VERY HARD TO LEARN AND USE, even i am a programmer, i have so much diffuculties when using linux, and how come an avarage user manage to use linux???
*windows xp uses system resources much more efficiently than linux

[dean_shan]

Hmmm... just checking out the screen shots of yoper and noticed that Yoper control panel looks very much like the Mac OS.x control panel...

Yeah right down to the icon's they ripped too. :roll:

[Zack Mahdavi]

I'd recommend Suse 9.1 Pro, Red Hat 9, or Mandrake 10. If you are new to Linux, definitely start out with Mandrake or Suse. I personally like Suse the best, since it provides the best Control Center for adjusting your system. Red Hat 9 is also nice when you have more experience, but I'd stay away from Fedora at the moment. I had too many problems with Fedora Core 2 when I tried installing it.

Currently, I'm running Suse 9.1 Pro.

[aliensub]

Before choosing the distro think about what you´re needs are:
1. easy install or more choices in setup (you have answered that already)
2. Do you need server tools or development enviroments (in the end it doesn´t depend on the distro but some have the stuff from the beginning)
3. Do you like a polished UI with bells and whistles (did anyone mention OS X here :roll: ) or do you want a more clean interface and not so ressourcehungry
4. Do you want to only have few choices of software packages availible at first hand or do you want the whole (Debian e.g. has reached appr. 13.000. packages in the testing distro)
5. Do you want an easy installation system, or one where you can compile from source (e.g. Slackware vs. Debian)

And there´s alot of other questions to be answered. when you have answered those for yourself it will be alot easier to choose. A good place to look is: http://www.linuxquestions.org/reviews/index.php
also check out theire WiKi for answers on many things: http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Main_Page

For myself i also use Debian. In fact i started out with Mandrake which seemed more easy but then i discovered that if i wanted to change some special things (startup scripts, service setups etc.) it was a headache becuse of all the automated scripts in the system.
Then i tried Debian. It required a couple of reinstalls but then i also had it right (Debian has always been dissed because of it´s install system. This has changed alot for the new release coming up). I prefer it for it´s good packaging system (apt), and for it´s layout of systemfiles etc. But again it´s just my opinion.
A good way to test the different main distros is to test the live distros based upon them. here´s a small list:
Knoppix, Mepis: Debian
MandrakeMove, PCLinuxOS: Mandrake
Suse Live cd: Suse
Slax: Slackware
Couldn´t really find one for Fedora
Look around at www.distrowatch.com for a complete list of most of the distro´s out there.

For questions linuxquestions.org is a nice and helpful place

[aliensub]

dadarkmcse, thank you, you saved me lots of typing, but i want to add some more:
*there is no good ide for programmers of any language, none is near visual studio
*most of vital programs are only working on windows machines, very little companies are writing drivers for peripherals for linux machines.
*VERY HARD TO LEARN AND USE, even i am a programmer, i have so much diffuculties when using linux, and how come an avarage user manage to use linux???
*windows xp uses system resources much more efficiently than linux

Not to start a flame but to say an OS sucks just because it doesn´t fit your needs is a pretty rugh statement.
1. I am not a programmer but with many of the C and C++ programmers i know prefer to code in Linux because of the superior IDE´s there is (Emacs, KDevelop etc.) They are propably not so point and as VS but more efficient.

2. Actually for the 90% of the peoble out there with a computer Linux has programs for it. Office suite, Email and browsers, Mediaplayers etc. Then we just come to point of setting it up, here many peoble will run away screaming :D

3. Linux is in no way as simple as Windows and is not intended to (although many peoble try to make it sound as a plug´n´play system). As stated earlier it started out for advanced users and still is although making it more userfriendly. I think there will go many years (if ever) where it will be easy for everybody to use. The only places i think it suits as a desktop machine is with computer nerds (or wannabees as myself) and enterprises where novices doesn´t have to install and setup systems.

4. I think it´s the first time I have heard that one. Linux is known for it´s better handling of ressources because of it´s way it handle the processes independently. Linux is true multitasking. How many times haven´t we seen Explorer dragging the whole computer with it.

Well i will stop now before i get to much offtopic :)