Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: What's The Easiest Linux Distro For A Newbie?

joseph Kramer -- a long-time user of both Windows and MacOS -- comes to Slashdot with the ultimate question: I've been lurking here for years and seen many recommendations for a Linux flavor that works. What I'm really looking for is Linux that works without constant under-the-hood tweaking (ala early Windows flavors, 3.1, 95/98). Does such an OS exist? For the record, I am not an IT tech. I just need something to work with the mechanical equipment it controls. Any recommendations?
When it comes to Windows and MacOs, he describes himself as "fed up with their shenanigans." So leave your best answers in the comments. What's the best way for a newbie to get started with Linux?

71 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. Mint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The answer in my opinion is Mint, there shouldnt be tons of constant fiddling... However it is important to understand, Linux is still very much a power-user operating system... So far i havent seen any distro worth its salt that does alot of hand holidng.

    1. Re:Mint by hughbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes. Thirded, if that's a word.

      Solid reasons (apart from 'I use it at home', I'm a computer person, so it's not a useful observation) is that my ex (bit geeky but non-technical career) and a bunch of old (55+) people in various community projects use it. They are often the easiest, because they don't arrive with a ton of half-formed preconceptions, prejudices about open source and uselessness of non-Windows, non-Mac. We install for them, but it's an 'easy' install and we re-use 'older' hardware that would struggle with Windows 23 (or whereever we are now, yes, I am joking before people jump on me).

      I'm 66 and my ex is late 50s.

      Incidentally, I'm not a complete fanatic and have a Windows laptop at home for Logic Pro, but I'm looking to transfer to Ardour perhaps this year.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    2. Re:Mint by hambone142 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I third Linux Mint. Just put it on a disc and boot from the disc to give it a try (or a flash drive). You don't even have to load the OS to try it. If you like it, you can dual boot it with Windows or overwrite Windows.

      I installed it both ways on two laptops and I really like it. The user interface is similar to Widows so it should be pretty intuitive.

    3. Re: Mint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think Ubuntu and Mint are difficult to use. I use Ubuntu and, for the most part, stuff just works. Linux distributions have come a long way from the days of needing to manually configure your X server, compiling your own kernel for updates (you can do this still, but I haven't needed to do so for a long time), manually configuring your network interface, and so many other things.

      Sure, there may be challenges with hardware and file formats that are proprietary, but I haven't ran into too many issues. There are software packages that receive little or no maintenance, but I'm not sure that those problems are worse than on other operating systems. There are plenty of questionable apps in the Apple App Store and Windows Store. There are plenty of programs that are no longer maintained. The app stores for Android and iOS are messes, with lots of poorly written and poorly maintained apps. Windows updates can break your system, and I'm not convinced Windows is any friendlier than Linux when things don't work properly.

      I don't think Linux is difficult at all. It used to be far more difficult to configure, but I don't think the reputation is deserved any longer. Unfortunately it's been hard to lose this reputation, inaccurate as I believe it is. I believe both the ease of use of OS X and Windows, and the difficulty of Linux, are exaggerated. Depending on what you want Windows or OS X to do, setup can be nontrivial. A basic install of Linux isn't very difficult now under most circumstances, at least in my experience. I've bought several desktops and laptops within the past year, all of which were easy to configure.

    4. Re:Mint by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      The real question before the quick answer is what hardware do you have?
      Mint and Ubuntu are relatively good at hardware support. However there may be that one piece of hardware that makes your experience difficult. An off brand wifi controller, an odd or too old or too new video card...
      some distribution have a lot of these hardware drivers installed some may be missing that one particular devices some my be GNU pure so you will need to manually get a third party non gnu library to get it to work. Which may be annoying if say your wifi is out and there isn't an ethernet port.

      Now Linux isn't horrible at hardware support and not meant to be scarry however some distributions work better than others based on different hardware configurations

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re: Mint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is with this obsession of Linux users to want everyone to be "advanced users"?
      It's precisely because of that, that Linux doesn't have a bigger marketshare, because of the Terminal that obsessed linux fans refuse to get rid of and the toxic community.

    6. Re:Mint by present_arms · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mint is a fine start. also think pclinuxos too, it's actually made to be simple and like mint you can have a variety of desktops disclamier: pclinuxos user and the person behind the trinity desktop version

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    7. Re:Mint by Drethon · · Score: 2

      I would say Mint as well for a basic user. If you plan on needing some more advanced software over time, I've found Ubuntu to be a good balance between simplicity to start and easy compatibility with more advanced software (I'm developing Intel Fortran, OpenMP and FFTW for a college project and Ubuntu seemed to be the easiest intersection of the packages). But with no need beyond the basics, Mint works nicely.

    8. Re: Mint by daedalus2097 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because then it wouldn't be leet enough for them and they wouldn't be able to pick up chicks with their hax0r terminal skillz.

      This is one of the things that annoys me too. I use Mint the whole time, and while it is lovely and user-friendly 95% of the time, I still find myself Googling for solutions to strange problems like not being able to save a custom resolution setting, only to find dozens of condescending forum posts on similar subjects pointing out that I obviously hadn't run [insert several cryptic terminal commands] before trying to do what I wanted to do.

    9. Re:Mint by bobf0648 · · Score: 2

      Two distros come to mind....PCLinux OS and MXlinux. Both "work" right from the get-go.

    10. Re:Mint by FictionPimp · · Score: 2

      I hate that we refer to needing to work on your OS to make it work to be a 'power-user'. I'm a power user. I build large scale server infrastructures for a living. I know the ends and outs of multiple operating systems better than I know my wife. I do not want to spend time working on my laptop! This is why I use OSX. Of the *nix operating systems, it's the one that needs the least amount of my time to actually use. I want to do work on my laptop, not work on it.

    11. Re: Mint by Highdude702 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If youre new to Linux, Youre going to want to use Mint or Ubuntu, Both have a large community and very close operating systems to eachother. when youre starting out you want to be able to fix an issue with a simple google search. Mint or Ubuntu will make that happen.

    12. Re:Mint by CronoCloud · · Score: 2

      How do I fix the mouse wheel? Scrolling is incredibly slow in some apps and reasonably quick in others.

      That's usually an application issue, not a system issue, involving hardware acceleration for scrolling. Turn it off.

    13. Re: Mint by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      How is that a problem. Normal people do not want to do this.

      Because the guy wants to use a computer, and he asked about Linux.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re: Mint by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because then it wouldn't be leet enough for them and they wouldn't be able to pick up chicks with their hax0r terminal skillz.

      This is one of the things that annoys me too.

      Ain't that the truth! As much as I love Linux, when I have a problem, it becomes a real pain in the ass.

      One group I have to deal with has twice now come out like crocodiles on a wildebeest to me when I reported a problem. In both cases, I've reported problems with updated distros and their software, and was called stupid, to go learn how to use Linux because it was obvious I never used it before, mismanaging my dependencies, and on and on. Then the distro producers put out a new distro. And it works. I was right, there was an issue with the distros - although the software should be more forgiving. Crickets chirping except for one guy who still said it was my fault.

      The thing that is sadly hilarious is that this software comes out for Windows, OSX and Linux.

      The first two, you click and install, and get to work. The Linux version is hours of screwing around. I enjoy compiling software, but mystery dependencies and inconsistent installs is a real pain in the ass.

      And exactly like these folks want it to be. They like 1999, and don't want to leave it. The goal is to do work, not simply get the software to work.

      Otherwise, Mint with Snynaptic to hit the software repositories is pretty good. If the software you need can be picked up through the repositories, you can bypass the ancient computing hell.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re: Mint by Kjella · · Score: 2

      What is with this obsession of Linux users to want everyone to be "advanced users"? It's precisely because of that, that Linux doesn't have a bigger marketshare

      Same reason we don't teach primary school pupils and university degree math in the same classroom or why NFL teams don't want to train against high school freshmen or Michelin chefs aren't interested in advice from their colleagues at McDonald's. You're not contributing anything useful at this level, you're just in the way. It's open source, people don't get paid per copy they sell. Most aren't trying to win a popularity contest. They're looking for a professional community/tool to support them and don't want it dumbed down to be newbie friendly.

      And some of them aren't exactly going to apologize for it either, in their minds you're the one butting in on a place you don't belong, like trying to get advice at a doctor's conference instead of scheduling an appointment. It doesn't help that some users act like you're their support staff and expect them to drop whatever they're doing to help you. It's very tempting to basically say we don't give a shit. Of course there are some will also immediately jump to the conclusion that any problem you have is because you're an idiot, just like all the other idiots.

      Most software try to separate newbies from experts, developers from users with varying degrees of success since they're not exactly crystal clear definitions or mutually exclusive categories. And without one bishop in the cathedral to swing the ban hammer, it's not so easy getting rid of destructive elements. It usually takes some rather extremely obnoxious behavior to make a whole community throw you out. But if this is approaching TL;DR, well they don't want you there and market share isn't an important metric for them. Why should it be?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re: Mint by arth1 · · Score: 2

      What is with this obsession of Linux users to want everyone to be "advanced users"?

      It's much like the obsession some people have wanting everyone who drives on the road to be "advanced drivers", understanding things like inertia, vectors and friction. How horrible!

    17. Re:Mint by Gramie2 · · Score: 2

      I installed Mint for my parents (both mid-80s, completely non-techy), mainly because we then didn't have to worry about viruses and other security issues. They have been fine with it for over a year. My uncle (mid-70s but an engineer) visited and saw it, then installed it on his old laptop and was delighted to find it useable. He has been evangelizing it to others.

      I also talked my ex (severely non-techy) through installing it on her Windows Vista laptop and she loves how much faster startup and shutdown are. She installed it while I guided her over the phone and English isn't her first language, so that shows how easy it is. Working out how to enable Japanese input was a bit harder, but by that point I was remoted into the machine using TeamViewer and we eventually figured out how.

    18. Re: Mint by Ramze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should that make you wonder? I "love" my jeep, but I have AAA, know a great mechanic, and I don't even change my own oil. I can change a tire and put gas in the vehicle... but the reason I love it has nothing to do with servicing it myself. I didn't assemble the thing myself, nor do I care to know how the parts all fit together. I just want it to work and if/when something needs maintenance or a recall, I want an alert and easy-to-follow instructions... even if those instructions are to get someone else to service it.

      I can't speak for the grandparent post, but for me, that's how it is for Linux. I like what it DOES for me, and I like that it isn't backed by any singular for-profit company that wants to display ads on my machine or mine my personal data for profit.

      If/when Linux becomes completely point-and-click or touch-screen / voice only input for settings and servicing, it'll finally reach desktop and tablet ubiquity. Android got a lot of things right that Linux has yet to figure out... Android is technically Linux w/ its kernel, but it's definitely not the same OS as Ubuntu... and it really shows from its market share in everyday user interface land.

      The terminal has its place, but it should be a last resort. Windows and Macs have GUIs for just about every setting under the sun. Windows even has "fix me" buttons to click on Microsoft's site for various bugs so one can download a script and run it without ever touching a terminal session... though lately, the most common "fix me" type situations are even embedded into the OS in a troubleshooting section under Windows 10.

      There's really no excuse for any help discussion to begin with "first open a terminal and type sudo...." anymore. It's 2017, and we have advanced AI with machine learning algorithms. Please, someone help the Linux community move into the mid 1990s with GUIs. It's really the primary thing that's holding back Linux desktop and mobile acceptance. Servicing Linux when something breaks should be very user-friendly and easy. Breaking things should also be more difficult to do. Self-checks and self-healing should be a regular cron job, updating video drivers should be simpler and there should be an easy option to revert to last-stable... rather than being greeted by a blank screen upon reboot if something broke.

      TL/DR
      I love an OS when it works like I want it to, but I hate that Linux takes little care in catering to average, modern computer users that are not IT workers. Things should just work, and when the don't work, they should be easy to fix w/ point and click.

    19. Re: Mint by fisted · · Score: 2

      I love an OS when it works like I want it to, but I hate that Linux takes little care in catering to average, modern computer users that are not IT workers. Things should just work, and when the don't work, they should be easy to fix w/ point and click.

      But we aren't at that point yet, so why are people who can't troubleshoot/debug easy things loving linux *now*.

      You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying unix is great because you HAVE to fiddle with it. I'm not, I'm saying unix is great because you CAN fiddle with it when the need arises. Unlike e.g. Windows, where basically everything is a black box and you have to resort to google generic error messages and things like that, and even if it were more transparent, you don't even get to look at the source code.

      I like that it isn't backed by any singular for-profit company that wants to display ads on my machine or mine my personal data for profit.

      Fair enough

    20. Re: Mint by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      The goal is to do work, not simply get the software to work.

      For avid GNU/Linux heads, the goal is to do work by getting the software to work, unencumbered by enforced dependence on one or more companies that may decide to irrevocably change the software or deny service in the future. This helps protect the future of getting work done. Thus, they like the open source and the self-compiling, etc.

      Meanwhile, The people who have the same hardware on their other system are producing already, while the Linuxgeek is trying to step through dependency hell and seemingly ejoying it.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm a Linux lover, just willing to point out a shortcoming instead of strutting around like its a right of passage.

      Compiling is fine. But it should be a .configure, make, and sudo make install process, not sit there and wonder why the program won't start, or getting some cryptic message about truncated line. or whatever else. It isn't 1999 any more, and if the best an OS can do is the 1999 experience, it isn't much of an operating system. But I know better, its a great OS, just one where the get off my lawn crowd has too much sway.

      And it really shouldn't be people ranting about what an incompetent asshole someone is, only to be proven completely wrong, then refusing to admit that they were wrong.

      As much as I like Linux, a fair number of its zealots are jerks.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. ChromeOS by kurt555gs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's linux. And there isn't any tweaking you need to worry about.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:ChromeOS by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RMS was right.

      He always said we should refer to it as GNU/Linux to avoid confusion. Here the OP is likely referring to GNU/Linux, but you're directing him at something which has the Linux kernel but does not behave anything like normal GNU/Linux.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:ChromeOS by yuvcifjt · · Score: 2

      Why would you recommend Google spyware?
      Which is evidently even worse than Windows 10 spyware, which is desperately trying to be a Google-wannabe in personal data acquisition / exploitation.

    3. Re:ChromeOS by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      RMS was right.

      He always said we should refer to it as GNU/Linux to avoid confusion.

      Actually, if you are referring to something unixy, you should call it POSIX/Linux because there are more userland toolsets than just GNU and they are all centered around POSIX.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:ChromeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      True. But he was still right.

    5. Re:ChromeOS by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your ad-hom was modded insightful. It's not.

      RMS is right about a lot of stuff. Sometimes it took 20 or 30 years for him to be proven right, but he saw it coming and didn't have to resort to logical fallacies. That's insight.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:ChromeOS by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 5, Funny

      RMS is also an opinionated boomer hippie asshole.

      RMS: "Flattery will get you nowhere."

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  3. Slackware by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

    and if you want the best user experience, install it from floppies.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Slackware by Alumoi · · Score: 2

      Come on, grow a pair! Install Gentoo.

    2. Re: Slackware by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      OpenVMS for anyone that want a really stable OS.

      And there are people around running Multics too.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Slackware by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Funny

      and if you want the best user experience, install it from floppies.

      Been there, done that. Now get off my lawn, user number 622387. LOL.

      Careful, you don't want to invoke the small number Gods on here. It can get ugly. I know, as I have hidden behind my keyboard and watched as 4 digit and under users have emerged from the depths and cast judgement on us lesser souls.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Slackware by coofercat · · Score: 2

      ...or download Linux From Scratch for a similarly authentic feel ;-)

    5. Re:Slackware by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 2
      Newbies...

      :)

  4. Control/command ? by dargaud · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What do you mean by:

    I just need something to work with the mechanical equipment it controls

    Apparently you just don't need a run of the mill desktop linux distro, but some special purpose to control some hardware, right ? The good news is that all linux systems are more or less equivalent for that. The bad news is: what is you equipment ? Does it support Linux ? Do you need to write software for it or are you provided drivers ? If the latter you should ask your hardware provider what they recommend, not us.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  5. Gentoo by fredgiblet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously.

  6. If you want a one-line reply... by ladislavb · · Score: 3, Informative

    then try Linux Mint - it seems to be the most popular and the highest rated among new users. But if you don't mind reading a bit before making a decision, then maybe this link will help (includes screenshots): http://distrowatch.com/dwres.p... Have fun!

  7. Re:Best Linux? What about best UNIX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, Linux is something fundamentally different from MacOS.. open.

  8. Debian by dwywit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just Debian, no derivatives.

    I've had the least trouble with Debian. Mint just doesn't seem to like me, and I don't like Ubuntu.

    Building Gentoo from source was fun, Fedora just didn't feel right, FreeBSD wouldn't even work in Virtualbox, and I've yet to experience the pleasure of Slackware.

    If this is to control manufacturing/industrial equipment, you really should be employing someone with skills and experience. /advice

    --
    They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    1. Re:Debian by laffer1 · · Score: 2

      You have to really mess with the settings to get some versions of virtual box to work with FreeBSD. It's super picky about the network card / settings choice. VMWare and Parallels work great with FreeBSD. VMWare player works if you're on a budget.

      VirtualBox is OK, but it's not always going to work out of the box. They do have FreeBSD settings in newer versions though.

  9. Kubuntu by qubezz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would choose Kubuntu for its normal Windows 7-like start menu (incorporating type-search for applications, and organized submenus). The distro also has several things to get you rolling, optionally installing flash and mp3 proprietary extensions, a driver installer to get proprietary things like ATI/Nvidia and WiFi up and running. Firefox and LibreOffice are ready to go, and typing "updates" or "software" in the menu will get you more programs to install.

    In 17.04 (beta 2 from a few days ago) the awkward "K" branding has been removed from KDE plasma, giving the startup and menu a more unified feeling.

    At noob level, probably the most challenging thing is to make and use a bootable USB of the distro, and for that, the ISO plus Rufus or Unetbootin will make the flash drive, and creative pounding of function keys on boot will get your PC to start live off it.

  10. Just use Ubuntu by Njovich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You say you don't want to spend time tinkering. As we don't know what specific software/hardware you will run, only general advice can be given. So generally speaking, if you go with the flow and use the most used distro, that will maximize chances that any 3rd party software you use will work with it. Even if something goes wrong, you have the largest chance of being able to Google your way to a solution. So, then consider Ubuntu (or another mainstream Linux distro).

    1. Re:Just use Ubuntu by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Second vote with justification:

      Ubuntu is primarily designed to be easy.
      Ubuntu has one of the best explained manuals for a beginner on the internet, covering really how to do simple things to get a system working. I often look to other manuals to tweak or do something else, but something as simple as installing a printer the Ubuntu manual is fantastic.
      Ubuntu is based on Debian which is an incredibly solid foundation for an OS.

      A few other flavours exist like Mint, but they mostly arose from some design decisions that pissed off Ubuntu users earlier on, and are now easily customised away.

  11. Knoppix (though maybe not a distro) by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    I suggest running Knoppix from a CDROM or DVD.
    Unless you specifically tell it to it's not going to change anything on your hard disk. You are not going to mess anything up by accident.
    If you want to keep stuff save it to a USB disk, or even run Knoppix from a USB disk.
    I've seen a lot of people who had never used linux before run knoppix with no trouble.

  12. See the Linux Mint 18 MATE desktop: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    See the desktop and new features: New features in Linux Mint 18 MATE

  13. Same answer since always by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

    The best one is the one the person uses you are going to ask for help. e.g. if you have a cow orker that uses Debian, and he is somebody that will be helping you, use Debian.

    When I started I had nobody to ask and Google did not exist yet, so what I did was try out several of the large distributions at the time and the one I likes/Worked was S.u.S.E. (Now openSUSE).

    So take a weekend and try out several of them. If you can not make a weekend available, you won't like changing OS and you will be a User (nothing wrong with that), not an admin on your own machine. Ask why you want to move to Linux and find a pre-installed system or let somebody else install it. As you won't tinker with your system, but just have it working, that would be the best solution.

    The more important question is if you want KDE, Gnome or XFCE. And when you have decided on that, look at how to install new software and how upgrades are done.

    I like YaST from openSUSE, because it is consitant for a lot of different things, not just installing software. You can also easily install XFCE, Gnome and KDE at the same time at the beginning to check them out.

    I dislike Ubuntu for the main reason of how they handle root situations. Yes, I know you are able to change it, I just don't like how they treat it as default.

    So try out several of them. https://distrowatch.com/?langu... will give an idea of popularity.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  14. The easiest distro in my humble opinion by truck87bp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Teacher of Windows and Ubuntu to the elderly, Ubuntu Mate 16.04 is by far the best people friendly distro. It is so much like the 6.04-10.04 that we all used to love but with all the new bells and whistles. I get more complaints that Mint its a little harder to find stuff in. I'm close to 70 and don't program. Most of my students are older than I. Thanks to all of the Linux family everywhere for making life so great at our age.

  15. OMG... it depends on your needs! by paai · · Score: 2

    Who are you and what are you using your PC for?

    I started in 1979 on an Apple II, graduated to CP/M and then MS-DOS. In 1991 I decided to try that newfangled Linux thing and never looked back. The important thing, however, was that I was driven by my needs; in 1991 my need was a Unix clone that could run an certain program. I then found that an Unix environment suited my other needs of that time much better: LaTeX/BibTeX was superior to MS-Word for writing my thesis, the command line and the Unix tools supported the experiments I needed to run so much better than MS-DOS, X was smoother even in 1991 as MS-Windows or the Mac... where should I stop?

    So if you use your PC for writing 'simple' texts, internet and games, Ubuntu or Mint will serve your needs as well as Microsoft or Apple, but certainly not better. If at any point you need to get off the trodden path, the power of the Unix environment will get you forward regardless of the Unix flavour you use. Heck! An Macbook wil work in that case!

    Paai

  16. Not exactly an easy question by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    And before I answer it, one thing in advance: It won't go without "tweaking". Yes, Linux went a long way from its "CLI only" days that became "CLI only, but we have some kinda-sorta frontends for some of the things, and a few of them actually work" to what we have now, a system that you can mostly configure without ever touching a command line.

    Linux is still, though, an operating system that retails its command line roots. In other words, every GUI does, CLI can do better. Or easier. Or faster. Or with more options. Eventually, you will open that terminal window. We know you will.

    Linux is also not a "fake it 'til you make it" OS where you guess your way through the menus, hoping that eventually you will find a way that lets you do what you want to do. Unlike Windows, where there are usually a few ways you can reach a goal, some more intelligent and efficient, some less, there is usually only one way to do something in Linux, and it needn't be the most intuitive one depending on the angle you're approaching from.

    So, with this all said, the question which Linux distro is the right one for a newbie is answered by answering two questions:

    1. With what Linux distribution will access to webpages on the internet work out of the box with near 100% certainty?
    2. Which Linux distribution has the most informative and best Google-findable "how do I do stuff" pages?

    The answer to those two questions would be Ubuntu. Yes, Mint works too, but Mint is a tiny bit different, and the last thing you need as a newbie is to wonder whether some cookbook you just follow is wrong, whether it's something on your end or whether it's one of the few things that differ between the textbook and your copy. And yes, Mint is a good system and in some areas actually better than Ubuntu, especially when it comes to support and tweaks for home entertainment, but I'd still stick with Ubuntu. Simply because you have a solid amount of good and helpful advice at your disposal that works for YOUR system.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. XUbuntu by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 3, Informative

    XUbuntu is very easy to install and maintain. It has a familiar Windows-like file manager and toolbar, and does away with the horrid UI that comes by default with Ubuntu. I've used that on a daily-driver development machine for a number of years. Download at http://xubuntu.org/

    --
    Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
  18. Any of the common ones will do by aliquis · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ubuntu and Mint both try to be newbie friendly and are large enough.
    Normal Debian which they are off-spring of (Mint grand-children) would likely do too though I know ..well, back in 2.x days you used to get a question how you wanted to merge configuration files and stick with what you had or get the new one or whatever and that kinda felt like a pain. I don't know how it handles if you've done any changes and that's likely when you get the most problem with it (which may still not be a problem.)

    OpenSUSE work just fine.

    Fedora likely work just fine too.

    Where they separate is how you upgrade, Debian can update from one version to the next from within the running system, I think Linux Mint used to suggest that you simply reinstall the new version but by doing that you of course need to keep your /home and any other files you want to keep separate or backed up. The advantage with the later approach is that you can introduce any changes whatsoever, including really large ones and the system will still work and it won't be a problem. If you keep some old stuff around you need to know how to migrate it to the new.
    There also exist rolling distributions or releases from those who use numbered ones where the OS constantly evolve and you just upgrade all the time. Then you likely get more upgrades and in the case of trying to decide what to do with old configurations and such maybe you'll get more work there but you will never have to deal with going from one version to the next of the whole OS instead.

    Multiple of them also don't want to include non-free software by default but remain clean/more clean from that and as such you may not get the proprietary video drivers, Adobe Flash, video and sound codecs and such installed from the beginning but information about how to get that software installed too is readily available so it won't be a problem to install it.

    There's some other distributions why try to be the most friendly and easiest and would include such stuff too but the problem with those is that they will be smaller than the ones mentioned above and maybe they just die off or get updates slower than the large ones or will lack the documentation you want at some time or what you find isn't exactly matching the system you've got and so on.

    Someone mentioned FreeBSD too before but FreeBSD isn't Linux, FreeBSD/Linux to some degree would be but you likely meant GNU/Linux. There's step by step guides for how to upgrade one version of FreeBSD to the next to there shouldn't be a problem as long as you follow that to do that either. Maybe a few more commands but you're unlikely to run into an issue doing it so it will likely carry on very smoothly anyway.
    Someone also mentioned ChromeOS but if so then why not go full-blown Android instead? Though I think they was supposed to merge. Running Android wouldn't be the worst choice. Valve should just release a version which adds upon Android if necessary to make the Linux games run on it too.

  19. What's The Easiest Linux Distro For A Newbie? by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's The Easiest Linux Distro For A Newbie?

    Just Debian, no derivatives.

    I've had the least trouble with Debian. Mint just doesn't seem to like me, and I don't like Ubuntu.

    Building Gentoo from source was fun, Fedora just didn't feel right, FreeBSD wouldn't even work in Virtualbox, and I've yet to experience the pleasure of Slackware.

    If this is to control manufacturing/industrial equipment, you really should be employing someone with skills and experience. /advice

    The first thing the person asking has to to realise is that this is a very loaded question about religion. You might as well ask which Christian/Muslim/Jewish sect has the 'one true' interpretation of it's respective religion's scripture. Having said that the parent is partly right, Debian or one of it's many derivatives is pretty easy on newbies, or at least as easy as Linux can be but then so is Fedora. Suse is also a good choice but less popular because it is meant to be a bit more Microsoft compatible and having anything to do with Microsoft is to Linux geeks what sunlight, holy water and garlic are to a vampire. When I worked with Suse I liked it because it has YaST setup and config utility which is a bit reminiscent of AIX's smitty (SMIT) command and lets you do lots of system configuration changes in one place and if you have to interact with Microsoft systems then Suse might be a good choice for you . For those looking at the enterprise sector you might want to consider CentOS which is functionally and (mostly) binary compatible with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offerings. I'm sure there are other Linux distos that are worth mentioning but these are the ones that I have worked with the most and think are good for newbies because of their features and/or community support. If you strip away all the sectarian bullshit that surrounds Linux distros the best advice you are left with is go for a big and widely used distribution like Debian/Ubuntu or Red Hat Fedora simply because there are lots of users and therefore lots of forums, blogs, help pages howto guides, etc... Of all the things that are mostt valuable thing to any Newbie the most important one is extensive community support. Suse and the host of Debian and Red hat based distributions all have extensive and helpful communities, especially the last two. You can always move on to something less widely used or hostile to newbies later.

    1. Re:What's The Easiest Linux Distro For A Newbie? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Of all the things that are mostt valuable thing to any Newbie the most important one is extensive community support.

      Not true. The MOST valuable thing to a "newbie" is a distro that "just works." What you want the most is something that will work without customization or tweaking first and foremost -- after that, the SECOND most important thing is good community support.

      Many of the distros you mention (SUSE, Red Hat, etc.) tried pursuing the ease of use and "just works" philosophy starting a couple decades ago, but Ubuntu really pushed that forward significantly, and Linux Mint went further still. Personally, after about a decade of periodic distro-hopping, Mint was truly the first distro I ever found that "just worked" to the point that I could recommend it to friends who hadn't used Linux before. I think Ubuntu has tried to catch up in recent years, too. I'm sure others will have different opinions -- but my point isn't to endorse Mint per se as much as to say that "just works" is probably the most important criterion for a newbie.

      And here's the thing about community support -- it really depends on precisely what you need support on. If you need support for a particular software package, it often doesn't matter much which distro you use or which community you search for support under. A lot of basic mechanical stuff for someone used to GUI OSes is going to be under their desktop environment choice more than their particular distro -- if you prefer MATE or KDE or Xfce or whatever, you can often find answers from various communities which support those environments under different distros. For example, I frequently use Mint on desktops these days just for ease of configuration, but I use Xfce because I personally don't see the point in wasting system resources on a heavier desktop environment. But on the occasions I need support for the GUI aspects of what I'm doing, I don't tend to find much help on Linux Mint forums, because few users seem to use Xfce -- but there are plenty of Xfce users out there in other places. And when a "newbie" needs command-line help or whatever, a lot of commands are going to be common among everybody who uses a standard shell like Bash and standard Linux libraries/applications.

      Obviously, it's nice to have a very specific support community for your specific distro, but there are lots of elements for users that are common across distros. Part of the learning curve for a newbie is probably figuring out the very few things they'd actually need to ask about in their specific distro forum vs. things they could get answers from in lots of places (and thus likely more quickly once they know what to search for).

  20. Mechanical equipment? by thsths · · Score: 2

    Reading is not a strength on slashdot. The submission says "I just need something to work with the mechanical equipment it controls", which seems to indicate that custom software is at play. In that case, especially if it is a non-standard interface, Linux may not be an option.

    For general use I would recommend Ubuntu, too, but this does not seem to be general use.

  21. Yeah, well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I changed my video card to one that had HDMI audio. If I want to use my fancy sound card, I need to prevent the system
    from defaulting to the HDMI interface. What's worse, even though the old sound card modules load on boot, the system
    (Mint 18.1) fails to make the old interface available in any of its configuration options. Blacklist the HDMI module? Now
    I don't get any sound configuration interface at all. I fumbled around on the forums for days. Nobody had a solution that
    that worked, much less one that a noob could grok. Fuck Mint. Fuck Systemd, Fuck Debian. Not necessarily in that order.

    1. Re:Yeah, well by CronoCloud · · Score: 4, Informative

      I changed my video card to one that had HDMI audio. If I want to use my fancy sound card, I need to prevent the system
      from defaulting to the HDMI interface.

      Your video card can output higher quality audio than your "fancy" audio card can, really.

      (Mint 18.1) fails to make the old interface available in any of its configuration options. Blacklist the HDMI module? Now
      I don't get any sound configuration interface at all. I fumbled around on the forums for days. Nobody had a solution that
      that worked, much less one that a noob could grok.

      pavucontrol, run it. If pavucontrol is not installed, install it, it has more configuration options and is apparently NOT installed by default in Mint 18.1 It will show BOTH your "fancy" sound card and HDMI audio and you can switch between them on the fly. In fact you can choose which output an application uses on an individual level. For example you could have XMMS outputting to HDMI, while rhythmbox is sending output to your "fancy" sound card.

      IMHO pavucontrol should ALWAYS be installed by default on pulseaudio using systems

  22. Re:Chrome OS: Not a full OS? Spyware? by quenda · · Score: 2

    There is nothing "lightweight" about Chrome.
    It can consume gigabytes of RAM and run full offline office documents and spreadsheets.
    Makes EMACS look like a DOS bootloader.

  23. Re:Mageia by guestapoo · · Score: 2

    My first distro was Mandrake 9, I tried several distros but end up, went back to Mandriva/Mandrake, now I'm still using Mageia today.
    Here some specifications why I think Mageia is good for newbie (or everyone):

    1) Mageia is currently not the most popular distro as its ancestor Mandrake, but still a popular distro, that is most softwares support Mageia.
    2) Easy configuration tools, installations (if not the easiest). Some of critical parts of the configuration tools have ncurse-based/CLI versions, so, such as, you could configure the drivers in the text-mode when bad things happen.
    3) Good hardwares support (I haven't had any problem with Mandrake/Mageia when installing/run live-cd).
    4) Stability, once I get Mageia running, I don't have any problem at all.

    Other things that I love Mageia:
    Wide range of running/installation options (live media, light/full...), has good support both GNOME and KDE.

  24. Mandrake is so hot now by CODiNE · · Score: 2

    In addition, you can get Knoppix which incredibly allows a full system to run of a CD-ROM!

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  25. Depends on the car analogy by Kjella · · Score: 2

    I've been lurking here for years and seen many recommendations for a Linux flavor that works. What I'm really looking for is Linux that works without constant under-the-hood tweaking

    I think the question really requires taking a step back and looking at what a distro is and does. Because if you're coming in from another OS I'd say there's three levels of changes and the distro-level is probably the least important.

    1. Applications: Do your applications run under Linux or do they have functional equivalents like web services you'd be happy with. If you've heard about WINE, then stop because Windows emulation is full of quirks. It's a tool for users that really, really don't want to run Windows even if it has 10x the issues of running Windows software on Windows. No distro is going to help you if after banging your head on GIMP and Krita you realize that no, I really need Photoshop or anything else with less than a platinum rating on WINE. And even then it can break in the next update.

    2. Desktop environment (DE), this is pretty much how the OS part of the interface will look like for you. No matter which one you pick it won't be like Windows or OS X. If a distro ships a DE, it'll probably look and feel pretty much the same across distros. If you don't like Gnome or KDE on Ubuntu there's not much point trying them again on SuSE, Mint or Debian. Granted, a few of these are almost like picking distros as I'd take Mint for Cinnamon and Ubuntu for Unity but far from all.

    3. Quality of packaging, testing, support, upgrades, security patches, availability of backports and third party repositories, release schedule etc. basically a lot of the boring housekeeping and problem solving. For the most part, this is what distros do - they take what developers have made and wrap it up in packages for you. But if the developers haven't made the apps you want, you'll be tweaking your work process a lot. If they haven't made the DE the way you want, you'll be tweaking your OS interaction a lot. A good distro doesn't create fuss for you, but it doesn't really mean it'll work for you.

    I'd just start with Ubuntu with Unity (the default) only because it's super common and see if you get past #1. If you do and don't like Unity I'd try Cinnamon, KDE, Gnome and XFCE, as far as I know they're all available as packages on Ubuntu. If you find something that looks right for you I'd move on to #3 and ask "What distro is the best to run [Cinnamon/Gnome/KDE/Unity/XFCE]?" Though I suspect that the answer will probably be one of the Mint or Ubuntu spins in most cases. There's not much point in going outside the beaten path if you just want to get started.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  26. Re:Elementary OS by Sivaraj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I second elementaryOS. It is very neat and clean UI and sensible defaults (most of the time). It is based on Ubuntu, so your have excellent package support. I have seen it working over 90% of the time with just default installation.

    Some Linux veterans may feel a bit crippled since it has very limited customization options, but for newbies, and those who don't intend to fiddle with the system, but just use it, it is the best I have seen in a long time.

  27. Raspbian by Max_W · · Score: 2

    on Raspberry Pi 3 computer https://www.raspberrypi.org/ . It is an OS and a computer with the link to the physical world via GPIO.

  28. We cannot give you an appropriate reply by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    I just need something to work with the mechanical equipment it controls. Any recommendations?

    Without more details about this "mechanical equipment" we cannot give you an appropriate reply because we have no idea if any

    Linux distro is even able to talk to and control this unknown "mechanical equipment".

    If you're talking about a regular CNC mill/router/lathe then LinuxCNC should be appropriate.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  29. Re:You need the "golden unicorn" distro by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Funny

    The best possibility is to find a version of Linux that does what you want it to, install it, then keep it far away from any and all internet connections. That is the only hope you have that it won't try to update itself, install new versions or discover that external stuff it expected to find has mysteriously been moved or deleted by the notional owner.

    He was asking about Linux, not Windows 10.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  30. Easiest for a newbie -- to do what? by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

    I hate to sound flippant, but "it's complicated." To maximize the chances of a good user experience with Linux, we need to have an idea of what the Linux newbie wants to do.

    This is not an easy question to answer off the top of your head because it requires you to anticipate things you might not do commonly but occasionally can be very important to you, like editing MS Word documents on an airplane or train (where you don't have a wifi or 4G connection).

    Do you have Windows/Mac apps you will expect to run on your Linux box? What does your pattern of network usage look like -- do you mostly connect to a few wireless networks at home or the office, or do you hop around between hotels and coffee shops and three or four different work sites? Is your workstation even a laptop at all? How sophisticated are the documents you work with (I mean in terms macros, collaborative editing, templates, and the like -- I am sure the content you produce is plenty sophisticated regardless!). Are you watching video for fun or do you need to edit video for work?

    Distrust any quick and simple answers from someone who doesn't show an interest in what your actual goals are as a user.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Easiest for a newbie -- to do what? by OfficeLackey · · Score: 2

      Not only must I concur with your answer, I have to wonder about the initial question. Is this flame bait? This question comes up ever other month and it's always a dog pile of distros based on what that particular user does with it. In my mind, the only thing this initial question will ever answer is, "Why Microsoft is still around". Because Linux users can't get their heads, efforts or money behind 2 or 3 versions and let the rest go. As a community, we are like lobsters in an open bucket. As soon as one of us appears to have a hand hold on rising above and getting out, the rest of us grab them and pull them back down. (...and M$ wins again)

  31. Android by iamacat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can get a Chromebook and run packaged, maintanance free Android apps and games. If you want to develop, you can install Ubuntu/some other Linux disto as chroot (Crouton) without impacting stability/maintainance-free operation of the main OS.

  32. ChromeOS by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But that's where the bulk of usage is. In the last 2 decades, the only people who went Linux were those who knew and loved the various shells, programming environments, UIs and so on. Those who wanted something to simply work went the Windows or Mac route.

    It's a different story today. While there's still no reason to go from Mac to ChromeOS if you've already sunk money into a Mac, people were unhappy first w/ Windows 8, and now Windows 10. But their choices - if they want to look at a Mac, they'll normally find it out of their budget - if they're not the Photoshop buffs but are just interested in email and websites. If they look at Linux, they'd have to be wary about what might not get recognized during the installation.

    ChromeOS gives them much of their use case, and once it has the ability to run Android apps, they'd have a leg up over even Linux. Only thing - the Chromebooks currently in the market are vastly underpowered. It would be nice if ChromeOS DVDs were available, so that if one wanted to install it on an i7 w/ 8GB of RAM and 2TB of storage, one could, and not be restricted to those entry level toys. Another thing - not everyone wants to store everything on 'the cloud', so it would be nice if the OS allowed you to store your photos, music and the like locally, particularly if you're not using an 8GB SSD.

  33. More complete answer... by evolutionary · · Score: 3, Informative

    Okay, this is a serious questions and all us who know the power and importance of Linux should be give more complete answers. I see a few hear but none that feels complete so I'll give it a go:

    For pure ease overall I would second the anonymous posting for Linux Mint. https://linuxmint.com/ It is overall the easiest to use for a newbies. The reason being that it has the best software package wizard/interface of the any distro I've seen to date. Runs virtually the entire Ubuntu spectrum, doesn't have odd experiments that we sometimes see in Ubuntu. I tend to prefer Mate (it's a bit older and uses fewer resources) but people wanting a more "slick" look will prefer Cinnamon. This is what you want if you are a pure desktop user. Especially for gaming. Plus Ubuntu has been caught doing desktop search data "deals" with Amazon (you can turn it off but it's not easy to find) so if privacy is a big concern, Linux Mint has to the best of my knowledge never given/sold data to Amazon. (see this link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...). One thing I should point out, the Linux Mint team was until recently a bit laid back on security leading to their website being hacked. They are more diligent now but just something to bear in mind. But Linux mint is in my opinion the best distro for Windows Die hard users to look at to make the switch. (you have TONS of games from Gog.com and Steam.com for you gamers..) I'm not suggesting Ubuntu simply because Mint is more usable and when Ubuntu starting quietly selling user data to Amazon (they may not be doing it now, but once bitten), I felt they betrayed the community as they did not announce it openly but started doing it quietly and made the "off switch" as tricky to find as MS does with changing the default extension save option in MS Word/Excel.

    That said, if you want similar ease but want to be able to do moderately easy admin style tweaking with a wide community help base, you use Mint Debian which uses a pure Debian file directory/location layout (Ubuntu and Linux Mint are Debian BASED but have a few tweaks/customizations that don't entirely match pure Debian specs but are compatible with the vast majority of Debian Linux packages/software).

    once your are comfortable you can tweak the User interface to look like whatever you want. But...if you want a more Mac look/feel out of the box I'd suggest ElementaryOS. https://elementary.io/

    ElementaryOs has the slickest look out of the box and while it says "for Windows users" I feel it's even easier for MacOS users making a switch. However, it is less mature which is probably why the packages are fewer and to expand that you need some knowledge a beginner would probably not have and the community base is significantly smaller (newer so this is to be expected.)

    If you want a more server set of functions and flexibility, I'd suggest using Debian (http://www.debian.org) and set the login mode to Gnome Classic. It will disorient MS windows users at first but the transition is still easy and I've had office use it with no real complaints (just that it looks different but staff figured it out quite fast). The advantage that Debian has is it's a true server level OS (even with GUI) and the being the base of more "user friendly" distro has a HUGE community base that can get you through almost anything. I may be digressing a little but it's important to distinguish what you are using Linux for. others will say CentOS but for Windows users I'd say the Debian package system is more like what MS windows users are accustomed to as opposed to the RedHat package system which will feel more alien to MS windows users. Lots of business big wigs will say go RedHat based (CentOS, paid RedHat or Oracle Linux) and for some business solutions with specific business needs it is in some cases the only way to go. If you ever decide to uas a RedHat Pac

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  34. Just do it by TimMD909 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nike had the right idea: just do it. Pick a distribution. Use it. See if you like. If you don't, switch.

    A very non-techie friend of mine installed Ubuntu 8.04 almost a decade ago and has only needed my help a couple times in that time period. Once he needed help with X config settings to hook up an old TV via HDMI. Another time it was a Comcast issue. Granted, my friend is on the high end of intelligence and he's not easily discouraged. His experience and lack of problems makes me believe Linux has been ready for the desktop for some time.

  35. Re:Windows is the Only One by unixisc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm assuming that you're not trolling, so here are a few things:

    - Linux is command line only if you want it to be: otherwise, you have the widest choices of desktop environments to choose from. Some hold that bonanza of choices against it, claiming that users are left confused. If you want something like Windows, but lightweight, Razor-qt or LX/QT would be a good place to start

    - If you are on a Linux command line, putting an '&' after your command and pressing enter will run that command in the background, and enable you to continue running other commands. Particularly if the first is something you know will take a while. There are other commands like bg or fg followed by the process ID that enable you to change the priorities of running commands. Incidentally, Microsoft too supports such things, using START and then the command name.

    - Linux does have a lot of commercial software available for it, albeit at the server or workstation level. Things like Verilog or VHDL. The usual desktop software like LibreOffice is $0 only b'cos they are a lot worse than MS Office, particularly for Excel, PowerPoint and Access

    Only thing you said that's right - the support. In Windows, when anything is broken, you call the PC vendor or take the PC back to the place you bought it, and they may help you. With Linux, since you got it for $0, there is no support involved unless you explicitly buy a short or long term support contract.