Slashdot Mirror
What's A Good Starter Linux distro?
alen writes "I've been working with NT for a year now, and I'm getting really tired of it. So I finally decided to learn Linux, after a year of putting it off. I've got an old P2 266 that I'm going to use. Now the next question is what distro do I get?
What's a good starter version? I'm just looking to get the feel of it and to play around a little. " This question gets asked periodically - it's always good to hear have a lively discussion about it - I love my Debian but have heard that Mandrake is a good starter distro.
You're probably saying already, that doesnt make sense. Let me ellaborate.
RedHat/Mandrake are both very similar. Often, one user of one hates the other. RedHat people will say 'RedHat is more powerful and stable' and Mandrake people will say 'Mandrakes easier and less buggy'. As you can see, these statements conflict. Overall however, there very similar, and either one is fine. They're both based on RPM, and they both can be used for virtually anything.
Then there's the Slackware/Debian crowd. They tend to stick together, but they have differant views none the less. They take pride in their 'elite feeling', in that only people with 'skill' can use and know these distributions. They're typically harder for the novice, yet easier for the seasoned Linux user. Debian has arguably the best package management, and Slackware has probably the most loyal user base ever formed. These are top choices for someone experienced in Linux. Additionally, their is Progney, a commercial debian-based distribution that makes using Debian easier, and provides commercial support. This is quickly becoming a good alternative.
Finally, there's the SuSE and other crowd. They are less known and used, and usually appeal to a specific crowd. SuSE for instance, is very popular among non-US users. These are also generally good, especially if you have really specific needs.
Now, which crowd is right? None. Which is the best? None. It depends on what you want, what crowd you fit in. If you're very technical, You fall into the Slackware/Debian crowd. If you like what's popular, easy, and commercial, you'll like hanging out with the RedHat/Mandrake folks. And if you like something very specific, or a close community, you'll like SuSE or something else.
But what is right for you? That's up to you. Research all of them, Try a few, Play with them. It's like shopping for a car. Some like Chevy, Some like Ford, and some are fine with a Honda. And some just dont care.
What I use depends on the target machine. If it's a server, I'll go with either RedHat or Debian. If it's a workstation, RedHat. Firewall, I use OpenBSD or Debian. But like I said in the beginning, my opinion, or anyone else's, means nothing. Good luck.
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
If it's because of a moral/open source issue, then realistically you have to go with Debian, but you can expect to encounter an almost vertical learning curve at the start - it's not reknown as an "easy to install" distro. So much so in-fact that I would *never* recommend a user with no *nix experience install it until they had played with another distro for a while - that's the beauty of Linux of course, you can play around until you find what suits you best.
If you are getting into Linux because you are going to be using it in a corporate environment, then you probably want Red Hat; it (or a derivative) is used on perhaps 90% of systems with "Linux Inside" and corporates seem to like Red Hat best, but check your intended first... Red Hat's installer has leapt forward recently and it's a very nice distro for support because it has the largest user base abd has generally given me the least grief.
Finally, if you are coming from Windows and are just curious to see what the fuss is about, then checkout S.u.S.E. and/or Mandrake. The former has an "everything including several kitchen sinks" approach and the latter is perhaps the best at making Windows users feel at home and has a very nice installer.
Finally. Play. There are lots of distros; the above are just the ones I know enough of the current specifics to support a new user on. Once you know your way around; install another distro. Play. Install another distro. Play...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
RedHat is FAR too close to Microsoft, in happy-friendly GUI ways, basic utilities crash constantly ways, and ebrace-and-extend ways.
/etc/sysconfig/network/*, ifconfig, and route.
:)
1. Happy-friendly ways. chkconfig, linuxconf, rpm. The ideas are nice. they're very nice ideas. However, they're botched in a number of ways i'll soon get to. KDE, GNOME, whatever is available in whatever default installation of RedHat is nice and quite useable. Just like Microsoft. That is certainly admirable. Doesn't make it good, though.
2. Basic utilities crash. Have any of you done an RH 6.2 FTP install? Hell, even a custom CD install can easily pull a segfault out of RedHat. netconfig on 5.x and 6.1 will segfault if it doesn't get specific PTR lookup responses. Even worse than that, it'll segfault in the middle, so you don't know if it's changed your sysconfig settings, your live IP address/subnet/default route, or what... and if they're out of sync, don't expect netconfig to work once more to fix it. It'll just segfault some more and leave you hanging unless you can vi
3. Embrace and extend. RedHat has positioned itself to be the high-market-share distro. However, RedHat intentionally releases broken standards (RH 7's egcs for one?) and moves things around in such a way that if a software developer writes a program to be installed on a RedHat Linux system, it won't install on any non-RedHat-based distribution. If it does install, the crazy egcs release will keep it from running on the new machine. RedHat often screws with things like init scripts just enough to make them UNIX-like, but to break POSIX standards. What pisses me off about RedHat is how deliberate their embrace-and-extend design policies are.
I don't recommend RedHat for anything, because learning the quirks of RedHat puts users into bad practices of using their proprietary tools, or expecting the proprietary behavior of their tools to be standard cross-platform. It's sort of like how a lot of linux distros have a 'route' command that, for some reason, won't accept 'route add -net default' (which is standard across UNIX) but will accept 'route add default gw'... annoying.
And why do users use SysV-style Linux distros, and still use ps -ax? why not ps -ef?
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
- The installation
- The management system (often related to the installer)
- Room for going out of the management system
Overall, I was most impressed by Redhat's installer. Of all the machines I installed on it caused the least amount of problems. Mandrake in some ways looked a little slicker, but when it had much less control, and ultimately annoyed me enough not to go further. Debian's installation lacks a lot. I beleive this is partly because the installation is less important with Debian (and I've gathered the same with Mandrake?)Although there is a certain amount of simplicity involved with distros based on tarballs (i.e. slackware) with the number of applications it can be rather time consuming after awhile. As I mentioned, I used redhat for a long time, and I found the RPM system to be rather frustrating at times. However, for a beginner you probably won't notice the some difficulties that might come up, as well as user friendlier front ends like ximian's installer.
Overall, really the key to getting used to Linux is: (a) patience (b) an ethusiasm for some punishment for great reward later in life [sounds like a religion..] (c) you need to make sure you sit down and spend a lot of time on the linux box - its a matter of needing to do things, and having no choice but to research how they are done [for instance, you 'need' to burn a CD, and you have to figure out how to set up ATAPI cdrom writers up] (d) an O'Reilly book by your side (I still have not found a good substite) - yeah, its basically what you'll find online for free, but unless you have another computer around, certain things could be difficult to lookup, and paper is sometimes better.
Comparing a vast majority of Linux distros together is like comparing apples and oranges.
Each distro has its major features, enhancements, and drawbacks.
I suggest you get 2-5 distros together, for a new user, I suggest Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, Suse, and possibly Slackware as good comparisons.
Try each for a period of time, then see which one you like best after you try them all.
Brent Jones
Back in the '80s, there was a television commercial that ran on certain NYC cable-tv channels almost constantly. It was an advertisement for a 1-900 phone sex line and featured an attractive blonde woman being urinated on by several off-screen men (the streams of yellowish liquid that covered her were later revealed to be Gatorade).
The ad's voiceover, a woman's breathy, sexy voice, said this: "1-900-555-PEEE. The extra E stands for eXtra Pee".
Windows eXtra Pee. At least Microsoft isn't telling us it's rain anymore.
Windows for Daleks 3.11.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
I've been using Linux and Debian long enough that it is probably just a case of I forgot what I learned, but could those of you with more fresh memories of difficulties shed some light for me?
There is one difficulty that has long been a problem with (I think) any Linux setup -- getting it to work with your hardware; although that is changing more and more. But I see that as a distribution-neutral problem.
When it comes to having well integrated software, and convenience in upgrading packages when you want new features or bug fixes, I have had far better luck with Debian than I ever do with Red Hat or Mandrake. The one version of Mandrake that I tried (7.2) was laughably broken. KDE settings would be lost without warning, their upgrade utility was completely worthless, because it did no dependency tracking for me, and several of the packages the "friendly GUI" listed would fail to be on the servers when I tried to download them. It was all I could do to keep the thing from spontaneously combusting. I gave up and switched my wife to Debian 8)
Maybe I'm just using my system differently than others? One suspicion I have is that maybe most newbies just install from CD, and then leave it alone most of the time. Therefore they don't expect to install new software they read about on slashdot or freshmeat, or upgrade to the latest version of qt for anti-aliased fonts, etc.
Anyone have any input that could help me out here? I never know what to tell potential newbies, because I always want to recommend Debian, but I know I've heard lots of people say that's a bad idea.
It tends to install okay.
Gives you lots of GUI configuration help.
All in all it is a nice beginner distro. As you learn more you can move away from the GUI configuration and do it by hand. Then latter on, if you want to keep learning more you can start setting up the more expert distos like Slackware, of Linux from Scratch.
Whatever you decide to do, Mandrake is certainly nice - hell my sister and Mother in Law both manage to use it everyday, without problems.
I come from a LAN down under
Where the packets flow and routers chunder
I have a laptop which runs Windows 2000 for my Windows development work. I often also wish I had Linux installed on it too, but didn't want to partition the disk, and didn't want to trust my Windows data to an experimental NTFS driver.
So I installed the Cygwin tools. Recently I upgraded them to the latest versions, including XFree86. Wow, do they ROCK. Most of the CLI tools I"m used to from Linux (BASH, SSH, man, info etc) where there. XFree86 defaulted to twm, but I downloaded the IceWM sources and compiled it with NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER and it works perfectly. Some configuration changes were necessary in some of the window manager files to get them working just so (in particular XTERM defaults to the current SHELL environment variable which normally under NT is set to cmd.com; changing the menus to xterm -e "/bin/bash" does the trick).
So far all the Linux sources I've downloaded have configured and compiled without any fuss.
If you aren't doing anything with the Linux kernel and you don't need a Linux desktop, then Cygwin on NT or 2000 may be a good way to get access to the user tools you get under Linux.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why restrict yourself to one distribution, particularly if you're going to start out by installing on an older computer? One of the best things about Linux is that you can get distributions dirt cheap. Go to a place like Linux Mall and get a bunch. You can even get multi-disk sets containing several distributions packaged together specifically so you can try out different ones and pick your favorite. Of course if you have a fast network connection and a CD burner, you could even download the ISO images and burn them yourself instead of paying $2 per CD. If you want, you can set up your partition scheme with a separate /home directory that doesn't get reformatted with each new distribution so that your settings are preserved from one distribution to another.
The big message, though, is not to take our word for which distro is best for you; find out for yourself. But don't forget to pay full price for the one you decide you like after you've made your decision. You'll get manuals, support, and help keep the maker of your chosen distro in business so that you can keep using it in the future.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Sorry I couldn't resist.
You realize of course we'll be marked as trolls for this, right? But, you beat me to it. So I'm ganna give you an AMEN.
I don't want to start a FreeBSD vs. Linux war...
I don't want to start a FreeBSD vs Linux battle, either. I get enough of that from some of the people I know. But I have to admit that after using several Linux distros and using FreeBSD, the choice (for me) was quite clear. That's not to say I didn't like some of the Linux distros I tried. Not at all. I really liked Storm and I fully intend to install either Debian or Slackware on an IBM I have sitting in the corner. But when it came time to choose a system of the many I tried to run my web-server off of, I had to settle on FreeBSD.
At first I was a little wery about going with something slightly less mainstream than Linux, but good Linux binary compatibility (not to mention the Ports Collection) was a plus that won me over to FreeBSD.
With FreeBSD the first few days were really rough because there were several major annoyances I had, and none of my Linux friends had any useful insight. But I quickly solved most of my problems on my own. I feel I have learned much more this way. Plus, when I needed quick answers, web-searches almost always provided immediate and exact answers because there is only one FreeBSD and many other users have experienced the exact same problems.
It's something of a shame that Storm went the way of the wind, but after I made my choice to run FreeBSD it hasn't mattered too much. As for my soon-to-be Linux system, that just shows that I'm not knocking Linux at all (how could I?) it's just that I made the choice based on my needs and what I like. I personally don't feel I was moving forward fast enough with any of the Linux distros, but I felt comfortable with FreeBSD very quickly.
That's just me.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I've heard this analogy quite often, but it's not fair. (And I think we all know that even if you didn't mean it negatively, in these circles, being compared to MS isn't exactly an endorsement.)
Red Hat might have the best selling and/or most popular distribution, but they're not Microsoft-like an any meaningful way. In fact, they're one of the most -- if not the #1 -- Free Software-friendly commercial distributions. All of the software they write is released under the GPL, and with the sole exception of Netscape 4.7x, the distro includes no closed software. (They've said that Netscape will go away when Mozilla is a completely viable replacement, which shouldn't be too long now.) And, they've shown repeatedly that they're not interested in becoming a monopoly (of Linux or in general) -- they're interested in increasing the Linux "pie" completely. (A great example of this is the Mandrake distribution, which basically started as a branch from RH Linux.)
In fact, take this as a challenge to people in general: point out one way in which Red Hat's behavior is like Microsoft's. From what I can tell, it's pretty much all "they're-too-popular-to-be cool" syndrome.
(As a side note: I'd say Caldera, with Ransom Love's anti-GPL rhetoric, is more like Microsoft -- or at least, they'd like to be.)
When I started using Linux a few years ago, I began with Red Hat 5.1 on a 486 66 Mhz computer (it was my only spare computer to mess with). It didn't really have any difficult hardware, except for a proprietary cd-rom drive. This was my first real experience in a *nix, coming from a relatively long DOS and Windows background.
From my experience the most frustrating part of learning Linux is getting all or most of a computer's hardware to work properly. For a long time I had no sound card that Linux supported. Fortunately, hardware support and automatic detection has improved tremendously. Now many ethernet cards, video cards, and sound cards are automatically detected by various Linux installs. CD-ROMS are almost always compatible with standard IDE and SCSI drivers. I believe that new users to Linux should be focusing on learning to install software, use popular software, and learn his/her way around a shell. Learning Linux shouldn't be mostly about learning how to install Linux, and this is where a few distributions have made great progress.
As your first distribution, I would recommend Mandrake. I have been a Red Hat user since my first install (and administering Red Hat based Cobalt servers). Red Hat's install (both graphical and text based) are reasonable for a new user, but they don't explain things as thoroughly as Mandrake. I installed Mandrake a few times and was fairly impressed with the installer and explanation, but it's a little too annoying to non-newbies. However, a new user simply wanting to toy with Linux would probably be best served by starting out with Mandrake.
Mandrake is nice that they are a download-friendly distribution. No other distribution is as easy to find in downloadable iso form. Yes, Red Hat offers it, but they promote their pay package far more than Mandrake does..companies like making it no-so-obvious that they can get it for free. I can't blame them. Also, Debian offers downloads, but their website isn't as easy to navigate and I'd hardly consider Debian a newbie-friendly install. Visit the mirror list for mandrake to download the install isos. There are two iso images to burn to cd-rom using common software like Easy CD Creator. If interested in Redhat, the mirror list offers a variety of sites to find both RPM files (for individual software install) and iso images.
However, buying a boxed set may be worthwhile for a new user. No need for big downloads, a cd-writer, and figuring out how to install. These include support and an installation manual.
I find computer books extremely helpful in learning a new operating system or programming language. Yes, website and forums are available, but a book is generally arranged quite well for new users. My first book was "Red Hat Linux Unleashed", that huge orange book. It included Red Hat 5.2 (though I already had 5.1 installed by that time), and had a few chapters on installation. Then, as I needed a reference or wanted to learn about setting up new services, I just read through the appropriate chapter. Though many disagree, I find it most helpful to have a large comprehensive book that covers all topics lightly to give a user a start. From there many websites provide the detailed information required to complete a task. I found the how-tos helpful in most cases.
So, in short, get Mandrake (or possibly Red Hat), get a good book or two (buy from a bookstore to be able to flip through it and see if it seems right, while also looking online to find reviews). Once you get the feel of using Linux a bit - take a look at other distributions (Progeny is a nice entry into the Debian world, for example).
Good luck.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
When I got started, I went with Debian (still a 1.x version; Slackware (a 6.x version) and Red Hat (a 5.x version). Having zero experience outside Windows these were fairly harrowing (esp deb and slack) but I got through it and read a LOT (sidenote: if your local library is any good, they'll have some decent books on linux in general, check out as many as you can and READ THEM ALL). Depending on the degree of technical competence and interest I recommmend different things. To my NT admin friends who want serious stuff and know their hardware back and forth, I tell them to go with deb, slack or a BSD. My wife, on the other hand, who just wants word processing, email, and web surfing on a box that doesn't blue screen every 20 minutes I went the Mandrake route, and my brother wanted more multimedia support so I pointed him to SuSE. I have changed "favorite" distros so many times I've lost count, all that matters is that you find one you're comfortable with, which only comes about by experimentation.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Mostly good advice. A couple of disagreements. I don't think you should rule slack out. It's not the easiest to install, but it's really not that hard. Anyone that's installed pre-win95 dos shouldn't have much trouble getting slack going. The package management is minimalist, but it does the one thing you really need and does it well - it installs and uninstalls packages cleanly. I've used it and I've used RPM based distros and honestly had a lot less trouble with slack tarballs than with rpms. And it's the leanest, fastest distro you're likely to find - perfect for an older slower machine. I've run slack with KDE happily on a machine that was just unbearably slow running Redhat or Mandrake with KDE - very impressive. The slack team takes care to configure things properly before compiling, and it shows. The guy asking the question didn't give enough information about his own situation to rule slack out IMOP. While Mandrake is perfect for the would-be Windows refugee that is installing to a new, fast machine, and wants the minimum of hassle or unfamiliar-looking routines, it's not exactly the leanest and meanest and may not perform very well on an old backup computer.
Other than that, I agree with everything you say, although I prefer WindowMaker instead of Ice that's just personal preference, either is a great choice, full featured window managers without all the overhead.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I haven't been running Linux lately, but I had the perfect opportunity in May - I was going out of town with my Laptop, and as long as I could use email, I was set. So I downloaded all the distros I could remember offhand - Mandrake, Corel, Debian, and Red Hat.
Debian - this was easily the toughest of them all. Text-based installer, questions I didn't know how to answer (why does it want me to become a USENET server?), etc, etc. But it finally ran, and being able to "apt-get" is amazingly cool.
Corel - I know I'll get flamed for this, and it DOES have disads. But it installed flawlessly on my computer, and seemed to work pretty well. On the plus side it acts a lot like windows, and installing software uses a variant of apt-get (which Corel is based on). I use it at home. On the downside, it's not nearly as supported as, say, Red Hat, so you need a lot more hand-holding. But I heartily recommend it.
Red Hat. I downloaded 7.1, and it had a great installer. The good side is that it's commonly considered the standard, so FAQs and programs are built specifically for it. On the down side, all the trojans and the like are built for it too. The problem I ran into is that applications stopped working for no apparent reason (even with re-installing from scratch) and Usenet didn't offer any solutions.
Mandrake - amazingly well put together. The installer was smooth as silk, everything looked and acted great, pretty sweet. I believe it's based on Red Hat, so take the pluses and minuses from that.
Overall - Any of them will work. Someone else suggested doing what I did, and I concur - buy or download all of them (and just go to linuxberg/linuxburg/linuxville and download the debian image- it took half an hour to figure out how to use debian's vaunted smart-installer, and then it didn't work. Get the ISO image), and try each one on your machine. I'd almost say to try installing them in this order - Corel, Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake. See how you like each one. Try installing a few programs. See what you think and once you're done, make sure to secure it. Keep it off the network until you have (if you can, since you'll be downloading stuff to patch it). In that part Debian has the advantage, due to "apt-get update", which will update all the packages, and I believe install all the security patches. But you still need to secure the thing, look at Bastille.
And let Slashdot know what you went with, and why. If it gets posted, it'll make an interesting followup.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Well, if you want to *learn* Linux, then you want SlackWare. I recommend it without even hesitating. Use Slack for 6 months to a year, and you'll know far more than you would if you used anything else. There's not easy to use GUI config tools. If you need a kernel feature, you'll probably compile it. If you need to change the way the system boots, you'll edit the init scripts. If you need software you're going to compile it 80% of the time. Using Slack *forces* you to know how the system works. It's just you, a text editor, and the config files. It's old school.
Using Slack will teach you how things are done, and it will teach you what not to do. You will spend a lot of time doing menial admin tasks. Slack doesn't even rotate your logs, so you'll have to do that yourself!
After you've mastered Slack, move on to something that's well maintained and stable; i.e. Debian or Red Hat Linux. Forget Mandrake. All of my friends who've used it have found it to be less stable than Red Hat. Noticing that a Linux distro isn't stable is terrible, and frustrating. Red Hat or Debian will be blissful in comparison to Slack, and you will love them for the rest of your days. Plus, most all of the things you learned from Slack will still apply.
DukeOfURL wrote this helpful article in choosing the best Linux distribution for your skill level, with comparisons of Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced distributions. They highly recommend Mandrake Linux for beginners, and I would tend to agree.
Once you have that down, then figure out which distribution to use and make sure that it has a kernel that supports your hardware.
I have been using Mandrake for some time and it has been my favorite.
-Kevin
One of the things I'm seeing here is that people are recommending the distro's they've used recently, and knocking distros they haven't. For example
I installed yet another Debian 2.2r3 box yesterday, the fifth in this room alone. Procedure: put the first CD in the CD drive, boot, answer a few on-screen questions, change CDs when prompted, job done. All distros are getting slicker, all installs are getting easier. Likewise, all package management systems are getting better.
However, while it's my perception that Mandrake is leading the charge on slickness of install and point-clicky admin tools, Debian is definitely leading the charge on package management and stability. As a newbie, you value slick install and pointy clicky admin; as you get older and more grizzled, you value package management and stability.
So my advice to a newbie would definitely be try Mandrake first, but be prepared to switch later.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I have tried redhat 7.1 and mandrake 7.2 and I had a sound card I was never able to get working. Mandrake 8 found and configured it the first time(I did'nt even know KDE had a startup sound before).
I will admit that all the guis can make it a little to easy to set up services though. They can be a crutch and I try hard to learn to set stuff up by hand first using the gui as a last resort and trying to figure out what they did later when I can.
I really do want to learn to compile the kernel by hand one of these days especially because mandrake 8 will not install on my laptop at all(even in text mode). mandrake 7.2 did but I was never able to get my cheap ass nic to work.
But like I said I'm no expert and I use linux for work (SQl, perl, webdev) everyday.
I'm assuming, due to the NT postion of the submission, that you're looking for a decent distro for the x86 platform.
However, if you have an extra PPC machine kicking around somewhere, i would suggest getting a copy of Yellow Dog Linux 2.0. I just can't say enough great things about this one; smooth install, good package tools, works great by default. Check it out if you get a chance.
Anyone else have suggestions for good Sparc or Alpha distros?
--saintI've been using public transportation for over a year and I'm getting really tired of it. So finally I decided to get a car. The next question is which model do I get? What's a good starter version? I'm just looking to get the feel of it and to play around a little.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I've been right in the thick of this lately, converting my 7-computer home (macs, linux, windows) into a 100% Linux home. My low-end computer is a 75 mhz 486 laptop with 4 megs of RAM, my high-end is a 750 mhz P3 with 192 megs of RAM. Here are my thoughts after getting into it with a lot of distros.
Red Hat is the default most new users would pick. As BigBlockMopar said in another post, it's what most howtos and guides assume you're using. They have marketshare, they have a GUI installer, they're relatively stable. They also don't invoke a die-hard following much anymore, probably because of stunts like the non-compatible gcc compiler included in the most recent releases. I also agree with BigBlockMopar that the .0 releases suck. His suggestion to stick with 6.2 and patch it, or wait for 7.2, that's good advice. I loooooveed 6.2 and 5.2.
Mandrake is clearly targeting the Windows-refugees. Their installer is slick, it detects even obscure hardware for you, it sets up a nice-looking GUI, lots of point-and-click tools. It also has a security setup which I love -- you can turn on a small firewall, set security to "paranoid" and really protect your machine. But Mandrake's 8.0 is like Red Hat's 7.0 -- buggy. Their graphical RPM tool will lock up if it can't do passive FTP -- it doesn't appear to time out or have any code to fail gracefully. The AbiWord fonts completely screwed up the 8.0 release, some text is almost unreadable. The TuxRacer game will die if you use KDE. But the community is great. It's the only place you can go, say "I love how Windows does this" and not get flamed. People are really friendly. 8.1 should be a delicious release if they squeeze in gcc 3.0 and X-Windows 4.1.
Debian is great because of apt-get. It lets you install just a very core Linux setup, and then add bits & pieces safely, as needed. But the installer is painful -- one install literally took about 6 hours, because there is a whole LOT of detail in there. You can switch packages on and off at a very granular level. Didn't help that during the video card part of the install, it locked up. But I still like this distro for one big reason: it will install on my lame old 486 laptop with almost no RAM. It's a miracle I can shoehorn anything onto that machine, and Debian does it. Debian is usually only downloaded, they don't much sell CDs. Debian is run by volunteers, so the system really works well, people put TLC into the bits they help with. But that also means packages fall behind if the maintainer is busy or loses interest, and it isn't really a mainstream consumer product. Progeny is a commercial version of Debian that is more up to date.
Small Linux is another good Linux for old old computers. It comes on 2 floppy disks for install, and you can run off a disk if you wish. I tried to copy it to my 486 hard drive, but it got too complicated and I bailed for Debian.
Here are three that I don't use (although I used to play with Slackware). First, Slackware's package tool isn't really a package tool. It doesn't resolve dependencies. I'm fairly good at Linux, but I still consider Slackware too advanced for me. It is the most up-to-date Linux release right now though. Second, I haven't tried SuSe, although I've lusted after it a little in the stores. It's a good, big distribution, lots of apps. Nice and graphical. But it also needs a lot of RAM -- I think 64 megs was the recommended base. This will be best on modern, fast machines, I think. Third, I don't use Caldera because their new license don't allow users to freely install Linux on multiple machines. More money for them, which is good (Linux vendors need to survive), but I don't use them because of it.
Lastly, some advice in general: if you're going to be installing on older machines, remember to AVOID using Gnome or KDE. Install them to get their apps, but then also install IceWM or WindowMaker, and use those instead. IceWM runs apps from other window managers really well, and it's responsive. It's what I'll be using on my 486 laptop when I get it upgraded to 20 megs of RAM.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
This is not meant as a flame. Please do not read it as such.
/. FUD tradition quite nicely. You said that "[Linux] blows NT/2000 out of the water in security and stability." then go on to say that "and do the BIND upgrade, since most older Linux/UNIX distros ship with a fairly dangerous DNS server vulnerability.".
I'm an avid Win2K user, and your post follows the
Isn't this a little contradictory?
2K has security problems, yes. So does RedHat. So do most other distributions of Linux. It's always a matter of patches/updates to the latest bug-free code. Yes, Linux usually gets fixes quicker than 2K, but at the same time, Microsoft was (as they should be) quick to jump on the fix to IIS5 with all the Code Red viri running around.
Please try not to bash 2K just because it's made by MS. It works. It works better than any other OS that MS has produced. MS took a clue about stability from Linux, just as Linux should take a clue about usability.
It's all about options, not "my dad can beat up your dad".
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
I agree. If you want a good learning curve and not too many weird bits, go with SuSE. My two gripes with Mandrake are how slowly they release packages (I wound up compiling everything, thus negating the benefits of a package system), and how the had lots of undocumented automated "features", like their menusync system.
That's assuming you want to learn to *use* and *administrate* Linux. For a much higher learning curve and a path towards kernal development and manual dependancy management (which isn't necessary unless you want to make your own distro or develop Linux itself), try Slackware.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I usaly install mandrake for people and then listen to what they like or don't like about it and what they want to do. From there I install the distro that best matches their needs.
Mandrake is the Mac of Linux
Redhat is the MS of Linux
Slackware is the UNIX of Linux
Debian is the Linux of Linux.
Ascii artist &
I've tried all the distros except Mandrake and SuSE is the best as far as getting setup and running smoothly.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Though I started out with Caldera, I'm on my third version of SuSE and love it. Great graphical interface, lots of install options and nearly every package you could ever want...
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.ht ml
For your first Linux distro, I recommend Red Hat Linux. While I think it's unquestionable that it's not the best Linux, especially from a security standpoint, it's very well supported. Almost every Linux FAQ you'll find on the 'Net treats Red Hat as the defacto standard.
Coming from NT/2000, for the first little while, everything is going to feel really foreign and strange. Don't lose your way. Relax and read the docs which are all over the 'Net. And don't be afraid to experiment with the system.
Red Hat has (don't flame me, this is from memory) an installed base of about 50% of the Linux market; you can't beat the support. And even if it's not the most secure or stable Linux, it blows NT/2000 out of the water in security and stability.
Specific version? Find a Red Hat 6.2 distro; make sure you turn off un-needed daemons ("services" in Windows parlance) and do the BIND upgrade, since most older Linux/UNIX distros ship with a fairly dangerous DNS server vulnerability.
I'd stay away from x.0 versions, especially RH 7.0, which, to be blunt, sucked. I like the greater maturity of the 6.2 distro over RH 7.1 because, well, RH 6.1 wasn't nearly as good as 6.2. Note that the kernel that ships with 6.x and 7.0 is a 2.2 series kernel, and a more modern distro has a 2.4 series kernel, which means better built-in firewalling, SMP support and a few other goodies.
Once you're comfy with it, consider moving up to Debian or Slackware - but that's a matter of opinion.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
But I am a rabid fan of Debian. Debian is easy to maintain; once a Debian system is working, it is so easy to keep it up-to-date. The Debian volunteers do a great job of putting together the packages, and the apt-get system is just wonderful.
But many folks find Debian hard to install. Thus I recommend you give Progeny Debian a try. Progeny is available for free download, or as a packaged product with support. Be sure to check and see if your hardware is supported, however; if the installer melts down, it isn't any fun.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
It really depends on what you consider necessary qualities of a "newbie" distro...
If you want something that's simple to set up and maintain (i.e. short learning curve) then mandrake is probably your best bet.
If you actually want to learn linux and its workings (which I advise) then use something which forces you to read a few faq's once in a while... like debian, or even better, slackware.
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
SuSE is a good middle-of-the-road distro, imo, providing a pretty easy interface, but alot of customizibility too. I guess it really depends on if you want to LEARN LINUX before you start using it, or the other way around... getting your feet in the water before moving into the more difficult things... Just my opinion...
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Having said all that, I think I'm switching from Mandrake to Debian after the next stable release. I've got the urge to get my hands a little more dirty. :-)
rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
If you are serious abot trying to "learn" linux - then nothing will teach you as much as slackware. Check it out at slackware.com. It might not be the easiest, but you will know a hell of a lot more about the way linux works after installing slackware, rather than redhat or mandrake.
S.t.e.v.e.
- 27 posts saying mandrake is the best
- 15 posts saying mandrake is lame
- 42 posts saying debian is the best
- 11 posts praising SUSE
- 20 posts flaming redhat
- 12 posts saying you should use *BSD instead
- 75 posts with no identifiable content
- 0 informative, well-reasoned posts
Why will it contain this crap? Because it really doesn't matter what you use as long as you learn the unix philosophy, so just pick a distro that you like, be it Debian, RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, Caldera or even FreeBSD or something.What really matters is that you realize that your choice isn't the only choice. Make one, explore it, learn about it for a few months, then try another one and learn the differences. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Hands down, I have to say it's SuSE. I've been with it since 6.0 and I've tried others in the meantime, and I always go *back* to whatever is current with SuSE. Why? It's probably the most *organized* distribution out there, plus it has the best documentation *bar none*. I tried Mandrake 7.2 and Debian. Talk about polar opposites, Mandrake was insanely easy to install, but chaotic once I started poking around in the guts (lots of "standard" stuff was just simply *missing*) and Debian, well, let's just say at the time the install was needlessly complicated for no reason whatsoever. (To be more specific, Debian pissed me off because I thought we had evolved since the first edition of Slackware, which was *simpler* to install than Debian. I was appalled at Debian's obfuscation of the install process. YMMV)
I installed SuSE 7.2 the other day, and it was well laid out and simple to install. It wasn't as automagic as Mandrake's install, but it's pretty close. I got Personal Edition this time around because I was looking for a more lightweight version that was better edited, and I'm pretty happy with it. They didn't leave out any of the essentials for a workstation, while making it lighter than the 7 cd/ 1 dvd Pro Edition.
Gawd, I sound like a commercial.
Anyway, that's my view. All flames will be printed out on TP and used to wipe my butt.
Oh, and one other thing...if any SuSE guys are out there, please PLEASE keep YaST2 as a separate program! In 7.2 the modules for it are integratable into KDE's Control Center. While this is more consistent and convenient, it screws with my ability to update KDE from source code.
I'd disagree with that. Linux tends to be as secure as the versions of the daemons you have running on it. Having done lots of installs of different distributions, if you ask to install a service it will be installed and run. I do RedHat installs and have only what I want running, I know people who do Debian installs and end up with things like discard, daytime, samba, etc running and not realising it. Does this mean Debian is less secure than RedHat? Of course not - it just means I know what things to select (or not) and how to check what's been installed and what's running... and my friend doesn't.
I suspect that part of RedHat's reputation comes from the fact that it's very easy to select an "install everything" option whcih does result in lots of unecessary services running. As you say yourself, it's one of the most popular distros - it's also one of the most well known. Hence you get lots of newbies who choose RedHat as their first choice and end up doing just that because they don't know any better. Recent versions of RedHat combat this in two ways. Firstly, there's up2date which is nice. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, during the install you can setup a firewall.
All that aside, the real answer is not that one distribution is better than another, it's that new people to Linux should RTFM. The same is true with most OSes, programs, etc. There are a large number of people who have very little clue, and some of them try to use Linux when they really shouldn't.
If it's for someone new to Linux, and it's for a desktop machine then I'd definitely recommend 7.1 over 6.2. Or 7.2 when that's out (a beta of it was released a little while ago). The 7 series has the features I noted above, much more recent versions of software (nice for playing around and getting a better idea of how good things are), better hardware support (2.4 kernel, XFree 4).
It just so happens that I spent this last weekend trying to answer this very question. While I'm pretty comfortable with a low-level Linux distro (I use Debian 2.2r3), I have some potential clients who have older machines and far less technical knowledge.
So I took an old box (233Mhz Pentium-MMX, 160MB, 4.3GB HD, SoundBlaster 128 PCI, S3/VirgeGX, non-name MB) and tried several different non-commercial distros. The candidates were: Slackware 8.0, Mandrake 8.0, Debian 2.2r3.
Note that my analysis was from the standpoint of giving a distro to an uninitiated user -- someone who can drop Windows ME onto a machine with ease, but who has never installed Linux. The results were disturbing.
To begin with, *none* of the distros could automatically install my 4.3GB HD at its full capacity. In every case, no matter what the BIOS settings, I was forced to edit configuration files to get the "whole" drive. Such behavior isn't acceptable for a newbie (or even an expert in a hurry) -- especially since WinDoze has no trouble installing the drive as 4.3GB.
Mandrake had the prettiest installation of the three, and probably the easiest, with two exceptions: DrakX locked up when it tried to start configuring X, and it couldn't seem to install my network properly. I solved the X problme by booting from the HD and manually installing X. As for the network -- well, I can ping the router, I can ping Slashdot, but it won't ping any other systems on my LAN. Apache and FTP daemons won't load for some reason, and I have no clue... yes, it did find my RealTek 8029 (ne2k-pci driver) network card, and I can get to the web via Mozilla. Mandrake is still on the machine, so I'll try to figure things out again tonight. Just plain bizarre.
Next up was Slackware, which seemed to install simply before refusing to boot. I get the "LI" half of lilo, and the machine is dead. The docs suggest that such problems stem from the default kernels, which are compiled with lots of "stuff". So I tried reinstalling with different options, and I tried recompiling the kernel (2.2.19 (?) and 2.4.5) several ways, and I tried using the kernel Slackware employs in its setup (bare.i and bare245.i). No go; always the same result.And yes, I've recompiled more kernels than I care to remember; I know all about running lilo and such. Even if the recompiled kernel *had* worked, such technical wizardry is not acceptable for someone used to the ease of Windows.
If I booted from the CD and mounted my root on the HD, Slackware looked pretty good. The network worked; X worked. But I have no idea how to install it so it will boot from the HD directly.
Debian worked quite well, installing a small base system. I needed to make a minor change to the modules configuration to load the driver for the network card; otherwise, I had a simple, working Linux system on tap in less than 45 minutes, including X. The problem with Debian: The release distro (2.2r3) is a bit old and behind the times. On the other hand, so is my test machine, so maybe that's why they get along (grumpy old hardware?)
For my own workstations, I'll stick with Debian and my tried-and-true system of using it to provide a base install that I then upgrade manually as needed.
Some final thoughts:
Debian is great for those of us in the "know". Love my Debian. It installs small, has a simple and elegant package management scheme, and it expects me to know what I'm doing.
For "normal" folk, though, *none* of these distros would be adequate. Windows is such a joy to install -- you put the disk in, you answer a few questions, and you have a working computer. While Mandrake's install is very nice, it still requires technical expertise beyond the desire of most "users".
You might want to look at SuSE or Red Hat; perhaps they're better-suited to the beginner. I have both distros, but they're old copies (v6.2 for both). Red Hat pissed me off by using the 2.96 snapshot of the GCC package; I didn't have time to download and burn SuSE CDs.
In the end, I still don't see Linux as ready for the desktop or the "user" community. It still needs to mature a bit -- and as an "expert" (note the quotes), I'll stick with Debian for now. It has worked on *every* machine I've installed it on; I can't even say that of WinDoze.
All about me
I'd recommend you take a good look at FreeBSD. Hop over to http://www.freebsd.org/ and take a look around. In most cases, all you need to get going is a couple of floppy disks and the instructions found here. The installation disks will automagically download the entire distribution via the net.
I don't want to start a FreeBSD vs. Linux war, but if you're looking for a server replacement, FreeBSD is a great choice. If you are wanting to use it on your desktop as a workstation, then perhaps Linux is the better choice, although I still wouldn't discount FreeBSD 100%.
I've tried quite a few distro's and I've stuck to Redhat and Mandrake because:
-lots of Deja.com questions
-lots of hardcopy books
I personally don't use RedHat (being a seasoned linux user, I have been using Slackware exclusively for a few years) but I have installed it on occasion, and find it to be relatively easy to use in its newest incarnations.
That is what I would suggest for any new linux user, especially coming from Windows.