09-07-2004, 01:52 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 602
|
|
What Linux Distro should I try?
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 06:07 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 06:54 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 211
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 06:58 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 761
|
|
Another vote for debian
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 10:34 AM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 574
|
|
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
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 11:41 AM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Give Fedora 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 12:59 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,208
|
|
i have tried red hat, suse, mandrake and slackware, and i am never gonna go back! linuc sucks!!!
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 01:05 PM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kowalski
i have tried red hat, suse, mandrake and slackware, and i am never gonna go back! linuc sucks!!!
|
Why?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 04:15 PM
|
|
Executive Editor, Android Thoughts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,233
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DJ Apod
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kowalski
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.
__________________
Dr. Jon Westfall, MCSE, MS-MVP
Executive Editor - Android Thoughts
News Editor - Windows Phone Thoughts
|
| |
|
|
|
09-07-2004, 04:24 PM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dadarkmcse
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DJ Apod
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kowalski
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. 
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
