The Best Linux Distro for a New User?

GhostCypher asks: "I've been a Mac user for nigh on 12 years, and recently made the reverse-switch (yes, Mac to PC) due to an unfortunate accident to my PowerBook. Now that I have this spiffy new HP laptop, I want to run Linux or Unix of some flavor on it, but I don't know the best one to run. I've been considering FreeBSD and OpenBSD, as well as SuSE Linux, Fedora, and Mandrake. Could the wisened Linux gurus here offer some insight as to the best package for a former Mac user to introduce him to the greater world of Linux without major headaches in setting it all up?"

Comments

Fedora

[FedeTXF]

Fedora, but adding apt-rpm and a sources.list pointing to where the mp3 and flash suport is.

OS X on x86

[4of12]

Could the wisened Linux gurus here offer some insight as to the best package for a former Mac user to introduce him to the greater world of Linux without major headaches in setting it all up?

Well, I love and advocate Linux use all I can, but know more than a few Linux desktop users that lean hard on their MacOS X Powerbooks. They're "UNIX", they have Word, Powerpoint and the usual Mac "it just works" stuff.

But if you have some influence with Apple, mebbe you could suggest an x86 port of OS X...:)

Realistically, any modern Linux distro is reasonable, but will lack a lot of the multimedia niceties that come out of the box with your Mac.

Maybe if you get CrossOver Office or Lindows it would help ease the pain of your loss.

You gave the answer in your question

[Rick the Red]

Free BSD. I don't recommend OpenBSD for a Unix beginner, unless you're building a firewall.

As for Linux, well, you did ask for ease of use. I've tried several Linux distros, and they all failed in one way or another. RedHat was the worst -- the installer got into a nice graphics mode just fine, but somehow couldn't tell XFree86 what settings it used, and subsequently XWindows was a pain in the ass. Perhaps Fedora is better, but somehow I doubt it. Mandrake couldn't recognize my network card to save it's ass (but RedHat could, so a driver is available). SuSE wouldn't let me try without buy (no ISO), so forget them. I wouldn't touch Debian with a 20 foot pole because 1) they're so damn political, and I don't need that crap I just need an OS; 2) they're way behind on the kernel releases; and 3) they're so damn political.

Basically, I'd stay away from any distro that calls itself "GNU/Linux" because their political statement is their #1 priority, and you want the distro to be their #1 priority.

Re:You gave the answer in your question

[Rick the Red]

Suse let's you do a free FTP install.

I want a CD install. SuSE has an ISO that let's you play with it, but not install it.

Current Knoppix is debian with a both kernel 2.4.6 & 2.6.6

Red herring. I didn't mention Knoppix. I've not tried it. Are you recommending it?

I think the only damn person being political here is you. As you won't go with what the better product is, but only be againist what someone else thinks is better. A completely political view.

This implies that you claim Debian is the better product. Did you claim that somewhere and I missed it? I'm claiming that FreeBSD is a better Unix-like OS than Linux, and that of the Linux distros I recommend avoiding those with an ax to grind and sticking with those that just try to put out a good product. However, in my personal experience, I have not found one Linux distro that worked well enough to keep it on my computer. Maybe it's my computer. I dunno. FreeBSD and OpenBSD work great for me, but I wouldn't recommend OpenBSD for a beginner.

Re:You gave the answer in your question

[Rick the Red]

there are plenty of places you can download Suse ISOs, just not directly from them

Like where, exactly? A Google search for "SuSE ISO" turns up dozens of pages of people looking for them, but no actual ISOs (other than the "eval" and "ftp" ISOs).

Let the flamewar ensue...

[rmohr02]

I can't compare any of the BSDs with each other or with Linux, but I would personally recommend Debian or one of it's derivatives (Libranet, Xandros, Knoppix, etc.), but there are bigger issues than that, IMO.

If you have a friend that's a Linux/BSD guru, pick the same distro as him so that it's easier for him to help you when you have a problem. If not, then start looking at the advice presented here.

Disclaimer: I recommended some distros, but my recommendations are not necessarily right nor wrong. Don't flame me for my own opinions.

As always, it depends...

[dmayle]

Why do you want to switch to Linux?

• Is it because you want to be able to tell other people that you use Linux? Try Xandros.
• Is it because you're just sick and tired of Windows, and you're sure there is something better? Try Mandrake
• Is it because you want to be sure that there is no closed source software on your system? Try Debian
• Is it because you want to put something on your CV (resume) for a potential employer to see? Try RedHat/Fedora Core
• Is it because you wish to learn all the deep internals of Unix systems? Try Gentoo

It really depends on your needs. Though I personally recommend Gentoo to all (yep, I'm a zealot :), because of it's great documentation, strong system control, and ease with which it teaches you Unix systems in general

Re:As always, it depends...

[E_elven]

I don't see a point in starting with an 'easy' distro. It'll just get you in trouble when you need to do something under the hood.

First, if you haven't used Linux (properly, more than a few hours), I suggest you download either Knoppix or the Gentoo LiveCD and play around with it, get used to the CLI (and you can load a GUI as well.) You should get one of these anyway, preferrably in two copies, in case something goes wrong at any time.

For a permanent installation I second Gentoo -it's simple enough to get started with the manual and Portage (the software package manager) is better than any of the alternatives.

If Linux isn't really what you want, go with FreeBSD.

Whatever distro you get...

[kenthorvath]

...make sure it makes use of an apt repository. For a newbie or anyone for that matter, there is nothing easier than typing "apt-get install INSERT_PACKAGE_NAME_HERE" when you need a certain piece of software. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Fedora has an rpm based apt solution, but I still think that debian is the best distro, once you figure out how to install it with the options you want.

My advice, start out with Mandrake, and after you screw it up or it screws you up, switch over to debian - with a little patience you will never want to use anything else.

Scale up

[Apreche]

When I first started with linux I used whichever Red Hat was out 6 years ago. After a year I switched up to Mandrake. Mandrake had newer packages and supported my hardware better. As I used linux more and more I learned more and more about it. About 6 months ago I switched up to Gentoo. I wouldn't reccomend going to Gentoo or Debian right away unless you are particularly adventurous. But if you are the kind of user who really wont settle for less they are the only distros that give you "real unadulterated linux".

So what you want to do is use Knoppix Mandrake Suse, etc. And learn as much as you can from those. Eventually you will reach a point where you aren't learning anything new. You'll also start getting frustrated because things wont work, and you wont be able to change certain things. RPMs are easy, but overall fickle and confining. When you reach this point, set aside a weekend and print the gentoo installation handbook and get a livecd. Or go the debian way, either is good. Anything harder core than those two distros is more difficulty with little reward for it. Lunar Linux is about as far as you want to go.

Anyway the point is if you want to be a real linux guy and get the full experience and whatnot, start small and work your way up.

Re:hmmm can we say flamebait?

[alienw]

Whatever. Mandrake has about 10x more packaged software for it than redhat. Download all 4 CDs + add contribs + add PLF, and you will have a hard time finding a program that isn't packaged. Plus, you won't have to hunt down RPMs -- just do "urpmi " and it will download and install it automagically. That includes things like MPlayer and DeCSS.

Re:SuSE 9.x

[pnutjam]

I have to second this, I really like Debian builds, both Libranet and Knoppix are good ones to try, but for ease of administration I have to recommend SusSE. It's been the only distribution that handles wireless like wireless was meant to be handled.

I tried Fedora Core 2 but I went running back to SuSE. Libranet is good for a desktop but I think you should really take a hard look at SuSE for a notebook install.

My own suggestions

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Echoing some of the other posts here: It depends what you want to get out of Linux.

If you "just want to use it" (i.e. you just want a nice desktop system that isn't proprietary, or just want to try out some Linux programs) I'd recommend (roughly in order of preference):

1. Knoppix - don't even need to 'install' to try it out
2. SuSe (Or is it SuSE? Or Suse? I can never keep it straight). They've always seemed like a reasonably decent distribution, and now with Novell's apparently-earnest-and-sincere backing, I tend to think of them as "the new Red Hat" (in that they'll be a 'default' distribution in the near future and thus useful to be familiar with).
3. Mandrake - I personally didn't much care for what I saw of Mandrake, but many people do, and this one is often suggested for "newbies".

If, on the other hand, you actually want to learn Linux:

1. Slackware - my personal favorite. It seems to be the most "generic-Unix-like" in general style. I think that although it's fairly "manual" in terms of setup, it's not difficult. But that's my opinion. It's probably the easiest-to-install-and-configure "nerd" distribution.
2. Gentoo - takes forever to install initially, because it actually compiles (most) of itself directly from source. You can configure it for the best compiler optimizations for your hardware and have, theoretically, the fastest-possible system. Maybe a bit of a steep learning curve to start with though - although if you're up for it, it may be worth it.
3. Debian - Possibly one of the most obtuse installation procedures (at least, last time I tried it), but once installed it's amazingly easy to maintain. ("apt-get" really is as cool as they say it is). Debian's one of the "big" famous distributions also, so if you find yourself working with a wide variety of Linux boxen, it's good to be at least a little familiar with it. Debian's other downside (apart from the initial install procedure) from my perspective is that by default their software versions tend to be quite old, though you can get around this by reconfiguring your system to pull updates from the "unstable" and "testing" branches.

Those would be my suggestions, anyway.

Gentoo

[joeljkp]

I'll have to play the part of the resident Gentoo zealot...

I like Gentoo because of a few characteristics:

1. Up-to-date stable packages - usually released within a few weeks of their upstream releases... GNOME 2.6 just went stable yesterday, and kernel 2.6.6 was stable the day it came out.

2. Tinker-friendly community - Gentoo is desktop-hobbyist-friendly, with a great community. I like the feeling that yes, my desire to tinker with a new X server or the latest Mozilla is fully appreciated and supported.

3. Easy package installations - one-line package database updating, package installations, etc., plus the whole self-compilation idea lets you customize the packages to your liking, while still within the confines of the management system.

4. Wonderful documentation - the installation is the hardest part, but with the Gentoo handbook, you'll be up in no time.

Of course, it does take time to get it up and running the first time, and for packages to compile, but I find it to be worth it, simply because it doesn't that that long, and you only have to do it once. Binary packages and a binary installation are available as well.

Re:Don't fear the command line

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

I tell people not to think of it as the "command line" - I think it's more like "keyboard shortcuts" for the core system...

And by extension, a system with no CLI is like a program with no keyboard shortcuts: You shouldn't be FORCED to use them, but some things are always quicker and easier that way.

Re:For the love of god...

[peacefinder]

Don't go with OpenBSD. OpenBSD has many noble design philosophies however "make the system usable" is possibly at the bottom of their list.

Nice bit of flamebait. What you leave out is that they have excellent man pages.

(OpenBSD has been my first *nix-ish system, and the major trouble I've run into is knowing which manpage to look up. Google is my friend, because inevitably some other poor newbie has recieved an RTFM "foo" flame for just the task I'm looking to do. It pays to lurk sometimes. :-/ )

I find OpenBSD works pretty well so far. I'm not using it for general desktop use as yet, but my X and Mozilla-Firefox installs Just Worked on the random old hardware I scrounged up.

Slackware.

[Inominate]

Though largely it depends on your goals.

If you want a linux system that will be up and running with the least amount of hassle, mandrake, knoppix, rh, etc are all fairly decent.

But if you're really out to LEARN linux, you want something like slackware or debian. Not as simple or hassle-free to set up, they tend to be lacking in simple GUI based setup utils. But you get a better chance to dive in and learn linux. As opposed to learning your distro.

Slackware

[antizeus]

I tends to be more secure out of the box than other distros. It has a superior package system that doesn't break your system or install lots of unnecessary crap. It has superior BSD style init scripts that are easier to manage (no need to wrestle with multiple levels of scripts and symbolic links). It puts files where software developers intend them to be instead of second-guessing them. It doesn't try to tie you in to nonstandard admin tools. These last two points make finding answers on the internet a lot more productive, since you have to spend less effort trying to adjust the information to your machine.

I love my Gentoo machines...

[foxtrot]

...but I wouldn't recommend them for a newbie. The install's just not geared for newbies.

Has nothing to do with the fact that Gentoo doesn't have a pretty-pretty graphical installer. The docs on the gentoo.org site are _great_, you follow the bouncing ball, and poof. You've got a Gentoo Linux system. Stuff Just Works. Cool.

Here's the problem: Before you have a functional system, you gotta decide: What kernel do I want? 2.4? 2.6? One of the modified kernel branches like -ac or gentoo's "gaming-sources"? Which syslogger do I want? Do I want ncron or vcron?

I'm not entirely certain your average newb has any desire to figure out how to answer those questions for his first install, so I'd recommend against Gentoo. Get 'em hooked, then they might want something like Gentoo.

It's really quite sad, though. You have to make all the decisions, making it unsuitable for neophytes, but once you make those decisions, Everything Just Works, which'd be excellent for the newbs...

Re:FreeBSD for newbies?

[Rick the Red]

If you think FreeBSD is going to be too difficult for a Unix novice, then why would you recommend they try any Unix? It's hard to be more Unix-like than the BSDs. Are you advocating Linux over BSD because it's more Windows-like? If that's what you want, try Lindows, or Lindos or whatever they're calling themselves today.

I recommend a book actually.

[jeblucas]

I'm also a Mac user that dabbles in Linux.

Personally I went with Fedora Core 1 and installed from the CD in Red Hat and Fedora Core Unleashed. (Amazon. ) I got mine at the library.

The book walks you through some trouble spots you might encounter and nudges you towards some options that may not be obvious from the Fedora literature, like having yum look at freshrpms.net instead of Red Hat (for packages that Red Hat might regard with disdain.) It even walks through installs of the UT2004 Demo and Enemy Territory.

Re:Cygwin

[damium]

Better than this would be Cooperative Linux. With coLinux you can run a full distro under windows. Add VNC and you can even get GUI apps to work.

This of course is assuming that you are not going to go through with setting up a dual-boot system or such. Personally I run Linux 90% of the time and only run windows to get to the very few apps that I need that don't run in wine or have a linux equiv.

For a linux distro I reccomend Mandrake for laptops because they have a somewhat cleaner support for odd hotplug hardware that is common use with laptops. (WiFi cards for example)

Mandrake versus FreeBSD for newbies

[bcrowell]

I used to use Mandrake, but have now switched to FreeBSD. Although I'm happier personally now with FreeBSD, I'd still probably recommend Mandrake for a beginner. The Mandrake installer, when I used it, was wonderful -- really easy for a newbie to run, and did everything right with no fiddling. The FreeBSD installer has some bugs (such as the graphical setup of X, which gives bogus error messages in 4.8 and 5.2), and you really need to have a book open in front of you to understand what you're doing, even if almost all the defaults are actually OK.

The FreeBSD installer does tend to do a good job of recognizing hardware, which is obviously vital for a newbie. It's a million times better than Debian, for instance, but maybe not quite as "automagical" as Knoppix. (Considering that Knoppix always recognizes the monitor correctly, why the heck does any Unix installer still get it wrong and require you to edit XF86Config by hand???) USB support in FreeBSD is relatively new and buggy (still lots of posts on comp.unix.freebsd.misc from people trying to get their keychain drives working, etc.), so that might be a reason to prefer Mandrake.

I really like FreeBSD because of its ports system, but I'm not sure it's right for a typical newbie. For one thing, you tend to get in situations where you upgrade libfoo-2.0.so.200 to libfoo-2.0.so.400, and then that breaks all the apps that expect the older version. A typical newbie would not have the slightest idea how to deal with this. (And no, recompiling the app from the latest cvs doesn't always fix it.) Also, compiling a new app often forces you to do "make deinstall ; make reinstall" cycles on a bunch of libraries, which is a pain, and would probably be scary and confusing to a newbie. The ports system is also only as good as the work of the people who maintain the individual ports. Since FreeBSD is more popular as a server system than as a desktop system, some of the ports of GUI apps, games, etc. aren't maintained very assiduously.

I'd actually be interested in hearing from people who've used the latest and greatest Mandrake GUI for installing applications.

Having said all that, one big advantage of FreeBSD for a newbie is that you can buy a book on FreeBSD, and what they're describing is the system you're running. This is not true for Linux. For instance, you can buy O'Reilly's Running Linux book, but it's trying to describe every Linux distro at once, so there's lots of "If you're running RedHat, the command to add a user is this, but if you're running Debian, it's this." Personally I like Lehey's The Complete FreeBSD, but the FreeBSD Handbook is also good. (I felt that FreeBSD Unleashed had too many of the wrong topics, and the screenshots were illegible.)