Beginner's Guide to Linux Distros

Martin writes "TipMonkies has a nice overview of various Linux distros for those of you with little time to research each distro yourself. The article also discusses some of the advantages/disadvantages of each distro." From the article: "SUSE- The 'U' is hard and the 'E' is soft. Almost like the word sue with an S on the end. SUSE is the other big commercial distro. It was when it was still it's own company in Germany, and now even bigger since being purchased by Novell."

Comments

Slackware

[big_groo]

Learn to do things without pretty GUIs. That's the best way to learn. Learn how your system works. LFS is good, but overkill, IMHO.

Re:Slackware

[Pros_n_Cons]

Learn to do things without pretty GUIs . That's the best way to learn

I'm still learning when using a GUI, I'm just learning how to do a task without reading a manpage.

Re:Slackware

[JabberWokky]

In Konqueror, you can use man:ls style URLs. Or simply a url of the form '#command'. For KDE commands, you can also open a tutorial by using a URL like help:knotes. Like all KDE extended URLs, they can be used virtually everywhere in KDE - try hitting alt-F2, and then type "man:ls". No need to ever use the mouse.

--
Evan

Re:Slackware

[rampant mac]

"Learn to do things without pretty GUIs. That's the best way to learn."

Why?

I can't wait for your reply...

Re:Slackware

[big_groo]

"Learn to do things without pretty GUIs. That's the best way to learn."
Why?
I can't wait for your reply...

What if there is no GUI? Not all servers have a 'Start' button...

Re:Slackware

[Anonymous Coward]

This guide is for beginners. How many beginners do you know that are going to be setting up servers?

Re:Slackware

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to do things without pretty keyboards and monitors: use punch cards. That's the best way to learn. Learn how your system works. LFS is good, but overkill, IMNSHO.

Re:Slackware

[kbranch]

Because sometimes it's just the best way to do something. I always keep at least one terminal window open, so if I want to find a file I just switch to it and type 'locate file'. In Windows, you'd have to click Start->Find->Files, then beat the clippy equivalent into submission, and then type in your search term.

The same is true of most Start Button based things. If I want to install a new program, I just type 'emerge package'. Want to start an app? Just type the name. Check for wireless? 'iwlist scanning'. Obviously you have to have gotten used to the CLI and memorized the commands, but it's much easier for many things once you do.

There are some things that a GUI is better suited for (browsing, word processing, etc), but the CLI is just the easiest way to do a huge number of things.

Re:Slackware

[mattdm]

"Learn to do things without pretty GUIs. That's the best way to learn."

Why?

I can't wait for your reply...


Because a GUI only allows you to do tasks which the GUI designer thought to create a button for. The *nix command-line interface, with its "everything is a file" plus "tools do one small thing and do it well" design priciples, provides a rich environment where you can do almost anything you can imagine -- including shooting yourself in both feet. But *that's* very educational, and since it's only a metaphor, not really so bad.

Re:Slackware

[Speare]

If you learn how to do something at the command-line level, you also learn how to automate doing things at the command-line level. A simple program is just a list of commands to be performed. Few things that are GUI-driven support any notion of automation. You become a slave to the mouse wasting time shoving around widgets, instead of the computer being a slave to perform your bidding.

Re:Slackware

[barc0001]

Not all people need servers either...

If you RTFM, it sounds like this is more geared towards people using it on a desktop.

And it's that kind of zealotry that puts people off trying linux. You may be thinking you're helping, but what the average non-tech geek hears from a statement is this:

"Learn to do it without a GUI. Only stupid people need GUIs"

Now, like I say, that's not what you mean to say, but that's how "Learn to do things without pretty GUIs. That's the best way to learn." will be interpreted by a fair percentage of non tech people.

Re:Slackware

[poofyhairguy82]

Why?

I'll tell you why I like the commandline: I can copy lines of commands that I don't understand off webpages and fix problems in Linux without having to read a bunch of GUIs.

I yeah....I guess I don't learn anything. You're right!

Re:Slackware

[norminator]

In Windows, you'd have to click Start->Find->Files, then beat the clippy equivalent into submission, and then type in your search term.

How about "WindowsKey + F"? The first time in, turn off the stupid puppy, and set up the options the correct way, then a search is always just a WindowsKey+F away. No, I don't think the Windows search is all that great, but it's not that complicated or difficult to get to, either. You don't even have to switch to a terminal window. It's easier for people to learn a few keyboard shortcuts than to learn to understand a CLI. I'm not saying the GUI is better, but it's simpler for most people out there. For power users, there's CLI.

Re:Slackware

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because a GUI only allows you to do tasks which the GUI designer thought to create a button for."

Because with a command line you can execute commands that the designer didn't think of creating a command for?

You can create inadequate command line tools just like inadequate GUI tools. The interface used doesn't dictate the coverage.

Re:Slackware

[JabberWokky]

I use Kububtu as well. Because I need to get work done. I first started using *nix in the early 80s, and know the commandline quite nicely. I like KDE because it uses the design philosophy of many small parts working together and exposes those parts though dcop so I can access all that power, even though a shell script.

Many people who have extensive experience at a command line happily started using GUIs when decent ones came out. Even the early textmode ones. The concept of partitioning tasks into parts of the screen and seeing your work "all on one screen" is powerful. Not to mention WYSIWYG and font and color cues on webpages.

I still use the command line a good chunk of the day - discarding web browsing or movie watching, I'm on a prompt the majority of the time. It just happens to be a konsole with a screen session on each computer.

Being good on a command line doesn't make you "better" or "more in tune" with a machine. It just means you are good on a command line.

--
Evan

Re:Slackware

[kfg]

Unixy shell commands live in an entirely different universe than GUI commands, with completely different "laws of physics."

Most of the really good Unix tools would likely be considered "inadequate" by someone who doesn't understand them, because they are designed and intended to work in conjunction with some other tool or tools.

So the answer to your question is, yes, by design.

That's the point. Unix tools are like Tinker Toys. Each piece has some nominal value in its own right, but are really pretty inadequate. Their real power comes in being able to combine them in novel ways to create your own structures.

You can't do that with GUI buttons, their whole raison d'etre being the delivery of a completely assembled "kit" at, well, the press of a button. A button designed to punch out cubes will do so much faster and easier than building the cubes out of all the Tinker Toy parts. . .

But you're hosed if you want a tetrahedron and you don't have a button for one of those.

When you realize how easy it is to make your own, custom Tinker Toy parts, commands, in a Unix shell, fully combinable with all the others, GUIs simply get left in the dust in terms of functionality. There are times when it can be faster to write a new command in C to get a job done than use a prexisting GUI, because it only takes a few mintues to write the needed command, and a few more to combine it with the standard commands, against countless, repetitive button presses to do the same thing.

I'm not anti GUI. I spend a lot of time in them. For easily predefined, repetitive tasks they have the value of being able to perform those tasks at the press of a button. But not being anti GUI doesn't mean I have to pretend it's always the best way.

KFG

Re:Slackware

[dtfinch]

My first distro was RedHat 6, which I hardly touched after I installed it. I didn't really start getting into Linux until I tried Slackware, which taught me a lot about how it all works, like how to do stuff from the command line, how to configure everything, how to install software from source, and other important things like that.

Some things are hard to learn unless I force myself, but afterwards I'm usually glad I did. It's not enough that something like a command line is available. It has to be all I have before I'll really learn it. Anything with a steep learning curve can't be learned a bit at a time as you need it.

I use Ubuntu now, but despite its aim for user friendliness I still need to use bash from time to time, or log in as root without starting X. Server administration would also be hard without command line experience.

Re:Slackware

[vwjeff]

What if there is no GUI? Not all servers have a 'Start' button...

While I agree Linux/UNIX/Windows sysadmins (me) need to use a CLI for many tasks, my grandmother doesn't. She is never going to administer a server.

The concept of a CLI is hard for some people to grasp, even though it is primative when compared to a GUI. When my mom or grandmother wants to open a disk, she double clicks a pretty icon. Simple enough. Typing mount /dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy is complicated.

Re:Slackware

[killjoe]

Because the command line more powerful then the gui. There are things you can do in a command line that you can't do in any gui especially with piping and redirection. Furthermore by learning the command line you can script these actions and run them later very easily.

Why? Because the command line is more productive and more efficient. Sure it's harder to learn but once you learn it it's easier to use. That's why.

Re:Slackware

[Chaoticmass]

Such is the state of things in the Linux world that sometimes the way to get the most out of the OS requires plonking down into a terminal.

It took me a long time to warm up to Linux because I didn't understand how things worked underneath the pretty GUI. Coming from the DOS/Windows world I just didn't feel comfortable having the command line there and not knowing how to use it.

On one hand you have Linux distributions that largly allow you to run the system without ever needing to use the command line. This is good for helping people get on the Linux boat, and I know it helped me in the beginning.

On the other hand you have people who enjoy the command line. I can truely understand this now because I've been playing with a headless Linux box for the past few months and my only interface to it is a textmode terminal over SSH. Learning to do everything through the command line has really helped me appreciate *nix systems more and I've learned more about how Linux works than I ever did playing with the GUI (or even building Gentoo.)

Is it the best way to learn? No. Worth learning? Absolutely. Infact, I think it lends an understanding of the system that goes beyond what you can get from the GUI alone.

Every interface is a layer of abstraction between the system and the user. The GUI is a much friendler abstraction and more intuitive, while the command line is a much more intimate abstraction of the system. Each one has it's place.

Re:Slackware

[NemesisNL]

what's this obsession with having people learn something? I just want to do what I need to do and the rest I'm not interested in. Si when I installed Suse and my nvidia card did't work I learned what to do to get it working and that's about it. Maybe the CLI is usedfull for setting up servers but maybe.....just maybe, a gui is apreciated so much by people because it is a damned good way of doing things. It's easier to learn how to use a gui so taht's what I want. I installed webmin and haven't looked back since. Got mysql and apache running like a dream and both are administered thruegh webmin.

Re:Slackware

[0racle]

Too many.

Re:Slackware

[Kurisuteru]

Heh... I must be an old fart at heart, then. Sometimes I certainly feel like one (at 26). I was attracted to Linux mostly because it looked difficult. Now please bear with me, I'll get to my points soon. First a tiny bit of background.

I first tried some version (1.x.y) in '94 but it threw a kernel panic almost instantly (I reasoned it was due to my 540MB Conner harddrive using some kind of "EasyBIOS") and didn't know how to fix it (didn't have the 'net to look to for help either). I put it away, and installed Win95 (alpha :). Years passed.

I've now used Slackware since 7.1, currently running 10.0 on my servers; I'll probably never use anything else on them. However, for my desktop I wanted something pretty with windows and graphics, looking to kill Windows completely. I still haven't :)

I've tried the "graphical" Linuxen since the first Corel. Since then I've been through Mandrake [8-10], SuSe [5-9.2], RedHat [5-7] and Fedora Core [2,3].

My experience is that they're all easy to install (even for a non-techie) and by default boots into a pretty-looking graphical system. But if that was everything that was offered, users with the need for little more than a web browser and word processor would be at a loss. A GUI way of configuring a complete Linux system, and all other apps being a GUI, would be so slow to use (click, click, click, type, click, type, click click) you'd develop RSI in a week. With a casual, non-techie user, fine; but the pros would commit suicude in droves. Or code a GUI app with nothing but a large text window to interface the system using self-invented textual command aliases for the GUI apps ("an atrocity, I tell you! You can't even use the mouse!" -Tilly) :)

Imagine doing a simple search/replace on text in a bunch of files with nothing but a GUI having radio buttons and checkboxen for all possible options... Of course, there would be no regular expression text input available; that would be a too difficult syntax for the user to understand. And to process those results further, you'd have to save the results and start another app to do it.
Unless an app was created specifically to do that chain of tasks. But then we'd end up with a uncomprehensible number of apps tailored to one weird, specific task. The command line just can't go away.

Re:SUSE

[mvdw]

Pronounceable... interesting concept that. One would think that if pronounceability was a major concern then one would choose a slashdot ident with that property...

SuSE Pronunciation

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought that SuSE was pronunced "zu-zah". This is the way it has always been pronounced by most German-speking SuSE experts I know.

Re:SuSE Pronunciation

[big tex]

I'd always heard that it was an acronym, and wikipedia seems to agree.

Apparently, SUSE = "Software- und System-Entwicklung" ("Software and system development").

Apparently, it was originally based off of Slack, not Red Hat, so that's nested errors.

Re:SuSE Pronunciation

[KillerDeathRobot]

I was a linguistics major for a while, but I think the problem with expecting people to use terms like aspirated or tense is that most people don't know what those terms mean (really, they're linguistic jargon). Thus even if the speaker learned, the hearers wouldn't understand.

What you're wishing for is for everyone to become more educated, and while it's certainly a noble wish, it's also not entirely realistic.

Also, I've never heard anyone saying a soft c to mean anything other than a c that sounds like an s, so I don't see what benefit there'd be to saying the latter. (I'm not sure what a soft t would be in contrast to a hard t, perhaps a th sound?)

Re:SuSE Pronunciation

[Arker]

Soft tends to only have meaning within a phonological and orthographical system. For instance, while both English and Swedish have soft 'g's, in English that means the g is realised as a 'zh' sound, while in Swedish it's more like an English 'y.' The only sensible parsing I could make of a 'soft e' in English would be a silent e. BTW, the linked page has already corrected that big of misinformation, although more remains. But back to what you wrote, a soft c in English is obviously an 's' sound, but in, for instance, Italian, it's what we would write as 'ch' (and, to confuse English speakers trying to learn Italian even more, 'ch' is used in Italian to indicate a 'hard c' in a position where it would normally be soft.) In Castillian Spanish, it's a 'th.' So, if I had to guess at what someone might mean by a 'hard' and 'soft' 't' in English, the only thing I can come up with off the top of my head would be to parse 'hard' as 'aspirated' - but most non-linguists don't seem to notice that English actually has both, and a linguist would simply say 'aspirated' instead I would think.

Re:SuSE Pronunciation

[croddy]

the thing with linguistics jargon, like computer jargon, is that it's consistent, and if someone wants to look it up, the documentation is available.

the problem with describing the "u" and "e" as "hard" and "soft" is that it's not only vernacular, but it's being misused. the words he's looking for, to imprecisely describe vowel pronunciation, are "long" for the u and and "short" for the e -- "hard" and "soft" are used to imprecisely describe consonants.

the four phonetic segments in "SuSE" are:

1. voiceless alveolar fricative ("s")
2. unrounded close back vowel, accented ("u")
3. voiceless alveolar fricative ("s")
4. schwa (a mid-central unrounded vowel) ("e")

Summary

[823723423]

[1]
Currently, the biggest distros not derived from RedHat or Debian are Slackware and Gentoo which also have their own package management systems with various advantages/disadvantages
[2]
Now with Lycoris (just purchased by Mandriva), Xandros, Linspire, and a number of others, Mandriva no longer is known as the most dumbed down distro, but still is very good for people new to GNU/Linux
[3]
There are plenty of ground up distros, but most are derived either from RedHat using RPMs (RPM stands for RedHat Package Manager) or Debian using dpkg files

Progressing

[Eternauta3k]

The user will change distros as he adquires skill... just start with an easy one.

Distrowatch

[vasqzr]

For a less biased review site, check out Distrowatch. They also link to independent reviews.

eh...

[ltwally]

"...The beauty of Slack is in its simplicity. The core of the OS is based off of BSD, whereas Debian and RedHat are based off of AT&T UNIX..."

eh... Is this guy smoking crack or something? I've played with Slack, and have multiple FreeBSD boxes. While Slackware might be the least graphical (and thus, more arcane -- like the BSD's) linux distro out there, it is not based off any BSD that I've ever seen. The kernel is linux, the userland utilities are all GNU, and the location and configuration of all the system files is definitely not BSD related.

I dunno... while much of this dude's article seemed accurate, after reading the above, I've come to the conclusion that even after all his years of experience, he's still a newb... or he's just plain smoking crack.

Re:eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

He is probably talking about the structure of everything, most notably the init scripts. Slackware uses BSD style init scripts, while the others he mentioned use System V style init scripts.

It was poor wording, but what he said makes sense if you think of it that way.

But people don't want to learn.

[CyricZ]

Most people aren't interested in learning how to not use a GUI. They want to check their email. They want to browse the web. They want to pay their bills online. They want to track their spreadsheet. But most of all, they want to do such things easily and efficiently. That's why GUI-based systems like Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows are so popular.

Re:But people don't want to learn.

[kneeless]

What a troll, but I'll bite.

Have you installed Linux lately for Desktop systems? I installed Fedora Core 4 and Ubuntu recently and was blown away by both. Both detected everything on my relatively new computer and loaded the drivers correctly. With Windows XP, I had the mundane task of installing drivers and programs manually, which isn't fun. Face it: Linux is becoming easier every day.

Re:But people don't want to learn.

[CyricZ]

I'd recommend Kubuntu (http://kubuntu.org/). It offers you the very user friendly power of KDE, combined with the awe inspiring packaging of Debian and the quick release cycles of Ubuntu. The system will be very usable right away, but not as restrictive and Mandrive and Lycoris releases. You'll be able to hit the shell if you choose to do so, but you're not forced into using it by any means.

Re:But people don't want to learn.

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Linux isn't a desktop OS. No matter what people say, that's not its purpose.

If someone wants to use their computer to check e-mail, browse the web, or pay bills online, they should stick to OS X or Windows...

Ok. Could you maybe open that up a little?

See, for me linux looks like a very good desktop OS. On my old HP laptop Ubuntu works faster and more reliably than Windows 2000 that it replaced (it was also easier to install). Most of my computer use fits in to the categories you mentioned -- the fact that setting up a ssh daemon is possible is nice too, but that's just a bonus.

Now, how exactly would Windows or OS X do those three things you mentioned better than my (pretty much out-of-the-box) Ubuntu installation? I'm trying not to label you a troll, but you just gave no explanation to your opinions...

Got the debian releases wrong

[mattbadass]

I think he got the order of his debian trees wrong. He had it at stable>>unstable>>testing. It's stable>> testing>> unstable. Testing is to test it before it becomes stable. Unstable is, of course, unstable. Just in case anyone reads this and uses the info. And yes, i'm being pedantic :)

Re:Got the debian releases wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that he writes:

"Debian operates with 3 major trees, stable, unstable, and testing, and the bleeding edge experimental tree."

Somehow, that seems to add up to ... four.

Re:finally...

[rmm4pi8]

Do "newbs" know what HAL or curses are or even necessarily the differences between KDE and GNOME? His use of terminology would be baffling if I didn't know a fair amount about Linux.

Slack-current

[KillerBob]

The guy's information is a little out of date.... For one, while it isn't a GUI-driven installation, Slack's install *is* menu-driven. If you read what you're presented with when you boot off the install CD, it's pretty obvious, too. It says very clearly, partition the disk, then type "setup". It even suggests using cfdisk to partition the disk if you want a "gui". I'd hardly call it arcane, since the information is given to you without your needing to hunt for it.

There's some assumption that you know what you're doing, and Slack doesn't set X as the default runlevel, but there's also a really helpful book available for free at Slack's website. About the only thing you really need to know is that RL4 is X, not RL5. That, and that it uses BSD init placement (/etc/rc.d/) instead of SysV (/etc/rc.d/rc.X/). Other than that, it's Linux. What works for one distro will work for Slack. Only there's probably already a package so you don't have to compile from source, just check linuxpackages.net first.

Also, Gnome has been moved to /pasture. It's not in -current.

He got the order wrong

[strikethree]

It should be:
Slackware
Debian
Gentoo
Redhat
Suse
Mand rake
etc.

Slackware is the oldest existing distro. It is also my second favorite. :)

Debian is... Debian is just incredible. It should be covered early on because it defines a linux based distro for anyone who has been around for a while. I do not particularly care for debian though.

Gentoo needs to be covered early because it can give you the most features with the least amount of hassle. Personally, this is my favorite distro.

Redhat, and therefore Fedora, should be covered... if only because they got their act together after 7 years of improper security practices and poorly thought out packaging. I really do not like this distro, but I suppose I should thank them for pushing me to slackware pre 3.2. :)

Suse and Mandrake have enough history to be considered important. I have no personal opinions on either one though.

strike

Laptops...

[skiflyer]

I still just want a distro that works great with my Thinkpad laptop.

I've been through Debian installs so many times, and I get so close, but there's always one thing or another I can't quite get (used to be sound, now I got that working but the darn thing won't sleep anymore)... I tried Kanotix, again the sleeping issue... downloading Ubuntu now. (Yes, in case you can't tell by the list I'm a big Debian fan... but Fedora is next on the torrent list, lousy 2.7GB download though)

Is there a reason laptops are so tricky for linux, and yes I know all about linuxforlaptops.com and the other websites which cater, but still, the installs are frustrating, the wireless has finally gotten to a point where it's ok, but still not great (enabling wep and connecting to a varity of networks etc)...

Does a "for laptops" distro exist?, I'd love it, hell I'd help with it if my skills could be used.

Sidenote: The old debian installer had much better support for laptops than the new one!

Re:Laptops...

[xsspd2004]

I've had really good luck with PCLinuxOS www.pclinuxonline/pclos on ThinkPads. It's a good system overall and has Thinkpad utilties installed by default. I haven't tried PR9 but 8 and 81a worked well. I wouldn't try KDE of you have less than 256mb though.

YMMV I mostly use Ubuntu now and just keep PCLOS around for a rescue CD.

Re:Laptops...

[MsGeek]

I have Debian Sarge running beautifully on my 600e. Sound and everything. http://www.thinkwiki.org/ is the place to go for Linux on ThinkPad goodness. Also get on the Linux-ThinkPad mailing list. Details also on ThinkWiki.

Re:Laptops...

[grammar fascist]

SuSE puts an awful lot of work into making the OS work well on laptops. Their "powersaved" is one of the best power management tools I've ever seen.

That, and I like the GUI stuff. You can be a power user on SuSE without having to remember arcane CLI commands. Of course, if you want to, you can.

I tried Debian on my laptop and gave up after struggling with the devices for 20 hours or so. With SuSE it was all done for me.

Re:a good resource

[TheGuruMan]

Problem is, distrowatch doesn't do what this guy's trying to do, which is to produce a brief, easy to read, and easy to understand summary of the biggest distros.

Unfortunately, his attempt at doing so isn't that great, for the reasons you mentioned. It glosses over lots of useful information while getting stuck in details that beginners probably don't care about anyway. And he succumbs to acronym soup (HAL, KDE, GNU, CLI) without explaining any of them.

Another distro guide

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I just found another overview of several Linux distros that may add some information to TFA.

Re:SuSE != 'sue with an S on the end'

[AFairlyNormalPerson]

SuSE is phonetically pronounced soo-suh.

No, zoo-zuh. Prevocalic S makes the /z/ sound in German.

Yes. I agree, but you both miss the finer point of the german language: you must yell it... loudly.

Suse Manuals

[miyako]

Although the article mentioned YaST and the overall refinement of Suse, it failed to mention what I think is perhaps the biggest incentive to buying suse for someone new to Linux. The Documentation.
The Manuals that come with Suse are some of the best I've ever seen. Granted by the time I switched to Suse I'd been using Linux for several years and didn't find the user manual all that useful, but the administration manual is still a great reference. In fact I probably refer to it more than my Linux: Complete Reference book.
The author makes quite a point of mentioning that Suse Professional runs about $100, but fails to mention the quality of the manuals you get with it, or that you can buy an "upgrade" version, which is the full version without the printed manuals, for around $40 from Suse's website.

Re:Hard U? Soft E?

[mattdm]

Hard means you pronounce it, soft means you don't. Sorta. They're trying to convey it's one syllable (suse) and not two (su-se).

Which is interesting, given that the SuSE FAQ says otherwise:

SuSE, pronounced soo'-suh, comes from the German acronym, "Software und Systementwicklung (Software and System Development).

Which makes more sense to me given my (limited) knowledge of how to pronounce German words....

Allowable post types:

[stevobi]

1) Downside X of my distro is actually an advantage, but only if you a) are hardcore, b) need optimization.

2) Downside X of my distro isn't a problem, you just...

3) You left out that my distro does...

4) My distro has apt/emerge, therefore...

and the only reasonable response...

5) Good. We need a simple guide to the pros/cons of the various distributions and of their intended userbase.

He should, however, add that Ubuntu gives a linux user the best of both worlds - ease of use and power. My distro is the best.

Re:finally...

[The Snowman]

Do "newbs" know what HAL or curses are or even necessarily the differences between KDE and GNOME? His use of terminology would be baffling if I didn't know a fair amount about Linux.

I agree. At the very least, he could have provided links to pages describing what these terms mean, or even a short blurb at the beginning of the article. There is much more to Linux than the distro, even for people that do not stray from the confines of the installation CDs. For example, I use Mandriva 2005. Just off the CDs, I have a choice between 8 or 9 desktops, at least 4 email clients, several web browsers, and of course the choice to run in X or the CLI where ncurses becomes an important term to know.

However, I still think this article does a good job. It talks in more abstract terms that do not overwhelm the new Linux user, while providing enough guidance that the user can narrow his search to two or three distributions. This is essential given that too many choices can overwhelm users, and most new users are used to having only one or two choices (e.g. Windows or MacOS).

too many distros

[Loconut1389]

IMHO, we shouldn't need a guide to the different distributions. Ideally a couple basic types that could be extensible into what people need- for one simple reason: cooperation. Why have all these different people fixing security and other problems in all these different distributions when we could take all those same people and put those eyes towards a much lower number of lines of code. IMHO, there's more in namesake adoration in the different distributions than there are actual differences in functionality provided. All these distributions with all their different package formats makes it that much harded for the open source developers to release source. Why should every end user have to compile from source when a package could be available, or why should every developer have to make packages for the umpteen different distributions? There isn't even a common source package format that would let you quickly build the appropriate package for your distribution. It's quite a pain at times to find some of the less common packages even for a 'major' distribution like RedHat enterprise linux or fedora core. IMHO, we need to ditch some of these and work towards a couple of perhaps more flexibly administered distributions.

Anti-Gentoo bias?

[zanderredux]

Heck, Gentoo is the only distro where the author mentions that "more experienced" users left it but still recommend it to newbs as a learning experience.

But he fails to mention where those "advanced" users went and why it would make sense to recommend a potentially more complex distro to new non-Linux savvy users.

Being a Gentoo user myself, I agree that Gentoo is not a dpkg/rpm-based distro, and that it can take ages to compile stuff, but this blatant bias is just completely partial. He was somewhat neutral on other distros (the ones he mentioned, never mind the ones he just ignored, like Mepis), he even showed some ignorance on Slack, but Gentoo did not deserve those lines, imho!

from teh author

[jwhamilton]

So, first wow I'm on slashdot. Second, I'm shocked I'm not getting flamed more. Third, sorry I missed so many distros. MEPIS is super and definatly should have been included. It was late and caffine started wearing off. And I'm wrong about SuSE.

Hardly

[Arker]

It's actually full of errors.

He's already corrected the first one (SUSE, being from Germany, is not pronounced with a silent 'E') but more remain. For instance, he confuses Debian testing and unstable, reversing them.

Re:Hardly

[Erik Hensema]

Also, suse was never based on Redhat. It was based on Slackware, but now uses rpm.

Re:Hardly

[zurab]

And to think that all the author had to do was look up a wikipedia article about SUSE to get his facts. I didn't think it would be that hard to do. Anyway, SUSE hasn't been "based" on any other distro for over 9 years now, so it hardly makes any difference, especially for beginners (which the article claims it is for), to explore any historical links that have not been relevant in about a decade.

Ubuntu and Slackware

[teslatug]

Funny that the author mentions some Slackers going to Ubuntu, seeing as this slacker just gave it a shot. I haven't installed too many distros after switching to Slackware from Mandrake, but after hearing so much hype I decided to try it. At least for my system, Ubuntu turned out to be too much of a memory hog for my taste. On my laptop I have a gig of memory. With Ubuntu I had close to 600MB free with no apps running (just Gnome), whereas with Slackware I had close to 900MB free (just KDE).

Re:Ubuntu and Slackware

[ptarjan]

Linux likes to eat up the memory and allocate it for itself. You free memory is not an indication of what is actually free. Try opening a program, it will just be given some memory that was previously allocated to the kernel.

Re:Ubuntu and Slackware

[Slack3r78]

I have to say I've had the same observation about Slackware to Ubuntu convertees. I think a large part of this stems from the fact that, for a while, Slackware+Dropline Gnome was one of the most straightforward, easy to use Linux desktop environments around to a lot of people.

Ubuntu arrived on the scene at almost the exact same time that Dropline was starting to stagnate a bit - Todd had pretty much burned out on the project and started a transition from a one-man metadistro to the project being community maintained. So while Dropline had always had the latest Gnome packages inside of the week in the past, they were very, very late getting Gnome's October 2.8 release, and when HAL was added in, it was more than a bit flakey.

At this same time, Ubuntu 4.10 Warty was released, which was a stable, easy to install distro with the same type of focus on usability that Dropline had always had. For many, it was their first taste of apt on a system that was easy to get running, and seemed to be headed in the right direction.

Personally, I made the move in late October/early November, and haven't looked back. While I still love Slackware, its underlying system wasn't the friendliest in the world for a usability-oriented desktop system. It's a distribution that's really fleshed out much of the potential I saw in Dropline, and Canonical is moving everything in the right direction to keep this happening.

Although I also have to say that it's not just Slackware users pulled in by this - it's no coincidence that it's been the top distro on Distrowatch for quite some time now. I think the most compelling case I've seen personally is a good friend of mine that's a total Mac fanatic. He's a geek, and enjoys computers, but in the past, he's hated anything Linux simply because it was too much hassle for him. That said, he's fallen absolutely in love with Ubuntu, and has been installing it on almost any piece of x86 hardware he touches lately. That's quite an endorsement to me. :-)

Re:finally...

[smartsaga]

[acronym title="This is a description, get it?"] Hover over this text to see a description [/acronym]

I hope the previous code shows up the right way.

Anyways, the author could have used the acronym tag and showed a little something more informative to avoid going off his structure while still giving enough info to the visitors.

Your stupidity are belong to... mm... you!... get it?

Have a good one.

Distrowatch

[rolfwind]

If anyone wants to research which flavor of Linux to get, go to Distrowatch.com and read the reviews by online magazines. They also send out CDs for a small price if you can't download/burn your distro of choice.

My personal suggestion for newbies to get a LiveCD like Knoppix or UbuntuLive. Then move on to an friendly system like Mandriva/Fedora/UbuntuInstall/Mepis, etcetera depending on their specific needs and research (distrowatch again).

If they want to get even more into it, try something like Slackware or Gentoo. Maybe as a final stage of total mastery Linux From Scratch:D

OTOH, if they really have spefic needs, there's no end to distros out there addressing a niche market and not just the desktop.

Oh, and avoid those people who make "their" distro a religious choice and all other nonbelievers infidels.

Re:SUSE

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC it is an acronym for System und Software Entwicklung.

The First Live CD?

[torpor]

Sorry, but Knoppix was not the first Live CD.

The first Live CD was Yggdrasil. You young whippresnappers would do well to learn how to say that word, yo!

Re:The First Live CD?

[torpor]

Hey, Yggdrasil was a major distribution too.. or don't you remember that era?

I still rue the day I chucked my small bundle of Plug N' Play Yggdrasil releases in the dustbin.. those were some classic CD's.

The Gentoo conundrum

[Chas]

Here's the problem I have with Gentoo.

On those systems that would actually BENEFIT from a near-complete self-compiled setup, most are too underpowered to do it in any reasonable amount of time (think days or weeks).

On those systems that are actually fast enough to compile the system in a reasonable amount of time, they see performance improvements measured in fractions of a percentage point. Big flarkin' whoop.

Add to that the dev community (who seem to be taking classes "You're too stupid to use OUR distro newbie!"), and you have just cooked up a rather unattractive pudding known as Gentoo.

Re:The Gentoo conundrum

[iCEBaLM]

Gentoo for me has never been about performance increases, it's been about packages compiled with the options I wanted, instead of what the maintainer wanted.

No, I didn't want mysql when I installed postfix, no, I didn't really need libjpeg/libtiff/libpng to install samba, no, this box is a server and I don't want X, why is php dependant on X! (and other weird package dependencies I've noticed in various distribs)

The flipside of the coin is that perhaps I want php or something compiled against postgresql or some other combination of modules which, for instance, fedora or debian won't allow me to have? Gentoo gets around this rather well as everything is compiled and you can link packages against the libs that you want. Also since you're compiling it yourself for your system you know it'll work whereas you can't be sure with rpms these days as they can be made for any number of distribs.

Gentoo is for advanced users who don't mind compile times and like having things customized the way they want it. It's not a bad distrib, don't knock it because of some of the users.

Re:The Gentoo conundrum

[(H)elix1]

I've struggled to put my finger on it, but I think you nailed it. Gentoo makes it possible for a 'non-guru' like me to maintain the software on my server.

Originally, I had kicked Gentoo around because it had 'bleeding edge' support for new hardware. Wanted to run AMD64, wireless, or some ATI video chipset on a laptop - I could usually get it up and running a few months before the major distros started including it. All good and fine, but not enough to hold me to a distro when the others got the support sorted.

What did it for me was having a couple commercial applications (a zSeries mainframe emulator was the worst culprit) that were tied to specific distributions. Great, except for two months after buying the commercial cut of RH 8 for one and RH9 for the other, RH dropped the distro support for anything other than the enterprise versions. I then got the joy of trying to keep these boxes patched on my own. (eventually switched to the red carpet service) I was very much at the mercy of folks who packaged the RPM's or what ever the software used to distribute binary updates. Did I mention bitter? I found myself circling back to Gentoo not because it was faster or l33t, but because a n00b like myself could actually keep a system up to date with the source based approach.

Re:The Gentoo conundrum

[shutdown -p now]

Being a Gentoo user, in fact, I'd very much rather prefer binary packages myself. But there's two reasons why I keep coming to Gentoo again and again, no matter what other distro I try. First, it has probably the most comprehensive list of packages. Debian is nowhere even near, neither is FreeBSD for that matter. And second, its FS layout and init system got much more sense to them than any other Linux flavor I've seen so far.

Welcome to the Linux car dealership....

[warped23]

Hi folks, you say you want a new Linux car? Step right into our training room where we will go through our special course "How to buy and configure your new Linux car 101", and we will have you out and ready to actually select and buy your new car in just a matter of hours! What? You think you want to purchase that Dodge Caravan at the dealer down the street? Hell no! You don't want that!! Why, don't you realize that our Linux vans can be configured with no less than 23 different kinds of seats? We will even give you a map to show you the way to the 23 different aftermarket Linux car parts shops that sell them! OK, enough talk of other inferior cars! Come on in, take a seat, get comfortable. Let's go through the overview of what we will cover in the course..let's see..frames..yep, we will go through the 12 different kinds of frames and what associated parts and components you can actually buy in install on each. Engines.. great module .. we go over the 9 different engines you can buy, and also the many differrent carberator, cooling, and air conditioning systems available for each engine option, just terrific stuff.. what? yes, questions? Oh, you say you've really no mechanic experience? Well, don't worry! We provide a full set of Snap-On tools (of course, you could also choose Craftsman or one of our other 3 brands) and even let you borrow a car lift to make installation a breeze! Does that answer your question? Great! Now on to the next module, Suspension and Tire options...we'd better hurry if we are going to make it to the interior seating module by the end of day...can I get you folks some coffee?...hey! Where are you going?!? Come back! Don't buy that Dodge, they only have 3 models..come on, they don't give you the 38 differrent kinds of headlights that you can put into OUR babys! THEY EVEN FORCE YOU TO TAKE DELIVERY WITH THE STEREO SYSTEM ALREADY INSTALLED!! HEY, COME BACK!!!......

Gentoo

[zecg]

Gentoo is extremely low maintenance (which could be said of Debian and Ubuntu), but unlike those allows you to easily set a persistent policies of what elements you allow or do not allow through USE flags. Compiling WOULD be a pain in the ass, but all the truly large ones (OpenOffice, Mozilla et al.) come as binary packages. And with KDE now atomized, compiling is truly no problem any more.

Rehashing tired "ricer" jokes is fine by me, but it would sadden me if prejudice stopped anyone from trying it out. For me, it completely broke the impression that Linux is difficult.

Uh.. it's German

[bach37]

If you speak German, or are from Germany, it's quite pronouncable. It's not English. You might as well flame a Russian software company name for being 'dumb,' too.

And the 'E' on the end of a word in German has the English short 'A' sound, or 'uh' sound. So it's somewhat pronounced like 'su-suh.'

Slightly OT: but Knoppix is also German, and is pronounced with a beginning hard 'K' sound at the beginning: 'Kuh-noppix.' Though if you say it that way in the US everyone will look at you strangely.