Question for all Linix users...

Calling All Linux users...

I'm trying to decide which "flavor" of Linux to implement.

Which is the best "flavor" of Linux and why? Don't give me an opinion, but please, give me concrete facts as to why you believe that the flavor of Linux that you use is better than all of the other "flavors" of Linux that are available out there.

But...if opinion is all that is available, I'll take that too...

Then again...maybe I'll have to try them all...or not at all...

Please I look forward to comments and discussion. Think of it...you will be helping another Microsoft acolyte go over to the "Dark Side of Open-Source Computing".

how is this the dark side? i thought this was the light side

jeff

Red Hat is good for no0bs, it has a GUI (dare I say, almost windows like) that you can use until you get used to working on the command line.

Mandrake is also new user friendly.

I have tried mandrake, debian, redhat and have now settled with SuSE for the following reasons.

Debian is undoubtably a great distro but it requires a great deal of configuration to be done by hand, this leads to a very slim and outstanding system with exactly what you want but it is very frustrating for the new user.. I will probably look at this once again when I have more experience with Linux.

Mandrake has a very easy installation however it provides very little information during the install which is of use to the new user, when I installed this I had little idea as to what each application did and as such took mandrakes reccomendations during install. Mandrake ships with almost every application I could possibly ever need but seems to reccomend installing every single one of them which creates a confusing system for someone who is attempting to learn a new OS.. I still have not worked out why mandrake seemed to think I required no less than six browsers.

Redhat installed ok and had no major problems but seemed to be configured in a way that Redhat wanted rather than in a way which suited me which was the reason I looked at Linux in the first place.

I eventually purchased a retail SuSE 8.0 as I realised that perhaps some books would be of assistance to my learning.. SuSE is a great distro which installs very quickly and remains exceptionally stable while providing enough information to help me learn, the support forums and SuSE themselves are great help and this for me makes it stand out from the other distro's

I'm a big debian fan, mainly because their packaging system (debs) is much supperior compared to everyone else's (rpm). Also debian can do a network install better than the others, but for a newb it isn't a very good choice as you have to do most things without a fuzzy gui tool to hold your hand.

Right now I'm downloading redhat 8.0 and will be installing it today. I hear it's really nice. Redhat has always been easy to install and supports a lot of hardware out of the box. I only have 2 real problems with redhat, their packaging system (rpm, which most other ditros have this problem) and their lack of support on the more high powered journaling filesystems. They currently only do the root paritition on ext2 or ext3. I would like to see reiserfs, jfs, or xfs.

I dislike mandrake. This is mostly my opinion, but I group it with KDE since it's their default. To me everything KDE isn't that great, but all the KDE users hype it up and go crazy about little things when it's missing major features. Example, KOffice, KDE users think it's great, but for god sakes it doesn't even have spell check as you type. That should be standard in any word processor. I'm gonna get hell for this, but all kde themes are as s ugly and just looks like windows on crack.

The only version of SUSE I've ever used was one I won at a linux users group meeting a long time ago, I think it's version 4 or 5. I've never seen a need for me to pay for an upgrade. Only beef I had with it, which is probably changed, was the default language was german and the first few installation screens were in german so I had to fumble through until I got to change it.

I personally go with Redhat. I found that for a beginner, you can fire through the install quickly and it'll give you just about anything you would want to start with, offering choices in groupings, but also allowing the experianced user to decide package by package what they want to install. I have to admit, though, the choose too much to install by default. I hadn't used Redhat at home for quite a while and was amaized at the progress in the GUI in 7.3. I will be downloading the ISO's for RedHat 8 in about 2 weeks when I'm not quite so buisy and I'll let you know what I think of the newest version.

PolyPill said:

The only version of SUSE I've ever used was one I won at a linux users group meeting a long time ago, I think it's version 4 or 5. I've never seen a need for me to pay for an upgrade. Only beef I had with it, which is probably changed, was the default language was german and the first few installation screens were in german so I had to fumble through until I got to change it.

Click to expand...

The latest version of SuSE installs with English as the default which is good for the likes of me.

Out of curiousity what shell do you like ? im currently using KDE3 but am considering a switch to gnome.. im not a fan of minimalist desktops, they have to be functional

I would just say to try them all, you can either download the ISOs or get copies pretty cheap, plus you'll learn a whole lot about GNU/Linux and be able to settle on the flavor that suits you the best.

I use Slackware because its simple; if you want to learn GNU/Linux use Slackware, and stay away from GUIs (which are default for things like mandrake/red hat). You can run slack just find after installing, but if you want to make any major changes, like getting X to run, you read a lot of man pages and HOWTOs, and figure out how everything works. This might scare away folks, but you'll learn linux a lot faster that way.

Red Hat is a little bloated IMHO, it always seems to install a lot more than I wanted it to. Rpm is hard to get working. Plus all of the other stuff that anyone has said.

From everything I have read and heard Mandrake is pretty newbie friendly. But once again if you want to learn GNU/Linux go with Slackware or Debian.

Plus, you could read the 'Which Distribution FAQ' here: http://home.earthlink.net/~obitus2000/linux_faq.html

I have been a perpetual linux noob for years but have finally started to really learn my way around a little bit.

I have been using RedHat 7.2/7.3 the most recently: 7.3 in particular, as it comes pre-packaged with the diskless computing environment that I'm messing with.

I have had absolutely zero problems with RedHat installation: little more knowledge is needed than for Windows- if any!

XWindows is configured automatically(the only thing needed is the correct amount of video ram my antique card has)

It can be set to boot into the shell, KDE3 or Gnome by default during install.

I am going to be trying the new Mandrake soon: I never was able to get 6 to complete an install, but newer versions are said to be great.

Since when is Slackware easier? I haven't used it since I discovered how great debian is and I got too lazy to compile everything myself. As a workstation I think it's just a pain, for a server it's prolly going to be the fastest but still too hard to keep up to date.

I just got done installing Redhat 8.0 and all i have to say is it's damn nice. Probably the first time I've been this impressed by Redhat in a long time. All the config tools are integrated with gnome2 and it runs quite fast on my crappy notebook. (450mhz) I didn't mess with any hardware setup, all I've done is customized my desktop to my liking. Although by default they don't have any mp3 support because the company that owns it is starting to get bitchy, but it's not hard to install the xmms mp3 plugin.

Originally posted by PolyPill
Since when is Slackware easier?

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that it was easier, just simple. Simple as in no frills, just pure command line (at least to start). Slack is by no means easier. I started using Slackware almost two years ago, after a brief stint with Red Hat, back when I was a linux newbie. I must have installed it at least 20 times before I gave up because I couldn't get it right, and I didn't pick it back up till about 4 months, a few books, and many man pages later.

(BTW, if the aformentioned quote wasn't directed at my post, forget I wrote all of this )

It was, I'm just too lazy to edit quotes ever since these quick reply boxes were added.

I still don't see how having to edit the config files is simple. To me simple is I boot off the cd and the distro sets everything up and makes me lunch while i stare blankly at the wall.

Ok, I get what you are saying. While the benefits of a lunch making computer are great for a new user, there are more benefits in knowing how and why your machine does what it does. That's what make distros like Debian/Slackware so popular, from the start you are in the guts of the system, and not in some fluffy GUI by default.

And on a side note slashdot is running a story/forum on Red Hat 8.0, read about it here http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/02/1233214.shtml?tid=110.
The posts have a lot of the same stuff as we have been talking about.

Hmmm...
Lots to chew on. As many opinions as there are flavors of Linux.

**hee*hee**

Thanks for the many responses, looks like I have to try them all till I find a comfort level.

So little time....and so many distributions to try...

**walks away scratching his head**confusion**bewilderment**

well if your looking for that "perfect" distro go to www.distrowatch.com I personaly perfer slack its a light wheight system /wo a lot of crapp compared to mandrake of course it does require some linux know how to install slack . . .


btw I'd get it just for the slackware quoter
every time you log in you get a new quote like
BEWARE: people under the influence of human nature

I'll have to defer to PolyPill's recommendations.

Debian, is my favorite distro, but I wouldn't recommend it to a newbie. Unless of course you had a linux mentor nearby. (In which case, I doubt you'd be on this board. )

Redhat, is my 2nd favorite distro. I haven't tried Redhat 8.0, but I have used 7.3. Redhat + Ximian Desktop is a great combo - for both newbies and experienced users alike.

I strongly encourage you to get a reference. I realize there are many people that feel that books aren't as useful as the internet. However, I personally just like having a book. I've learned just as much thumbing through linux manuals as I have surfing the web.

Ya, this is one of those religous questions, like "are AMD chips better than INTEL?", "Are Ford trucks really tougher than GMC?" "is it better to FOLD or to CRUNCH"

Etc.

IMHO, the big difference with "which LINUX" compared to all the other major religious arguments is that at least SOME LINUX flavors really are different. I mean, Ford trucks really can go anywhere a GMC can go, its which you prefer. And pretty much any software that runs on intel will run on amd. There just isn't really much difference ....

And then you come to Linux. There are real FUNCTIONAL differences between distributions (Linux Router Project = router on a floppy, no GUI VS the GUI everything distros). And then there are cosmetic differences.

The "window manager" you use will also spark religous discussions. In windows, you pretty just much use windows. In linux, you can choose KDE or GNOME as your "window" environment, or you can choose much smaller (less memory) window managers.

LINUX IS ABOUT OPTIONS, since everyone has different preferences, "best linux" doesn't really make sense as a question.

Some people want to get in and know all the guts of their OS, want to configure whether their kernal allows certain things, want to only have the driver for their particular network card, so that there is no wasted spaced with extra drivers, etc. etc.

Other folks simply want a "windows replacement" maybe with some extra feautres, like SMP support.

MY RECOMENDATION is Mandrake. I've been running Mandrake 8.2 since it came out. I also <prefer> gnome, and it was easy to default to gnome instead of KDE.

<NOTE, redhat and mandrake are so close, that most of what I say below also applies to redhat>

SO WHY MANDRAKE?

I have seen software that has precompiled binaries <um.... ready to install without knowing too much > for redhat / mandrake, but only has the source, that must be compiled, for other distributions. In other words, mandrake / red hat has some <ok maybe slight > greater application support than some of the other distros.

As others mentioned, it has a GREAT graphical installer. It makes using linux VERY SIMPLE. I origionally could get up and running quickly. I LIKED the fact that the default install put too much on my system. I didn't know WHICH browser was a good one, and I could try a bunch out. I now know that MOZILLA is my browser of choice, and can just install that in the future.

NOTE, the graphical based systems DO ALLOW you to get down and dirty and non graphcial. Mandrake will run in a terminal window only, if I wish. I can compile my own kernals either from a command line OR from the Mandrake graphical kernal configurer.

Mandrake is as powerful as any of the other distros. It has all the power, all the flexibility a power user needs, AND can be simple for the newbie.

Mandrake is a good system for a newb to install, and grow into.

WHY NOT MANDRAKE?
It won't do a default install on a 486. It has pentium optimization built in to the default install. Of course, once you are installed on a pentium machine, Mandrake will compile 486 kernals, its just that the default is only pentium and higher.

Because Mandrake tends to recomend / default to installing extra software that you might not need, a newb with a small hard drive could be hosed. Note, the 8.2 default install will install a base system, no GUI, onto a 60 meg HD. But you only get this option with the "advanced install". The advanced install lets you check wich software you want installed, so you can have as little or as much as you want.


Many Linux distributions really are different, and suitable for different needs. Most of the big distributions really are functionally equivelent, and it ends up boiling down to your own personel tastes.

In windows, you get to chose windows. PERIOD.

This is linux, you do get to chose what you like, there are plenty of choices, and pretty much any distro you choose is beter than windows.

Enjoy, and welcome to the light.

"BRAVO..BRAVO!"**jumps to his feet clapping an cheering ecstaticaly**"Well said None1"

Ok..seriously now. That is the kind of discussion I was looking for.

What are the differences and features that led you to choose GNOME over say XFree86 or KDE for your choice of GUI? Is it a look and feel issue, or feature set? Is one GUI more responsive than the other?

Now onto the base OS... Can any of the distributions be loaded as a "server" or is that another distribution or series of packages that need to be downloaded and compiled?

Hmmm... The more I think about Linux and the flexibility and scalability, I'm reminded of the story of the blind men and the elephant. So much to consider.

frodoski said:

What are the differences and features that led you to choose GNOME over say XFree86 or KDE for your choice of GUI? Is it a look and feel issue, or feature set? Is one GUI more responsive than the other?

Click to expand...

Umm. This starts getting more religious. Both KDE and Gnome are more complete "window manager systems". They both have an editor, they both have a file manager, etc.. I think Gnome is a little smaller, and KDE is a little more fancy / polished. At one point in history, I thought KDE was not as GNU / free software friendly as gnome, and so I went gnome, it was more a religious thing.

I wanted to use one of the more "complete everything included" environments. I wanted to have a linux experience close to what "windows level" users would have / need. Other managers give more options / customability, but are not for the <generally less technical> windows crowd.

Now, with linux, you don't really need everything packaged together. You don't need to have your window manager also include all your other common apps. For example, there are some window managers that take up a TINY amount of memory, but may not have a file manager included.

Its mostly a look and feel thing. If you have white windows and blue slider bars for your window manager, your file manager / web browser / editor may not have white windows and blue slider bars unless they are all compatible and following the same "scheme". Gnome and KDE make it easier to make sure everything is on the same scheme.

There are some funtionality issues, in that if you run a KDE compliant application under another window manager, all your funtional behavior might not be as expected. For example if you run GNOME, and then use KWRITE, the kde editor, you may sometimes highlight and copy something in KWRITE, but it may not paste into your gnome app like you would expect. If you used a gnome editor, then you could copy paste fine between applications.

frodoski said:

Now onto the base OS... Can any of the distributions be loaded as a "server" or is that another distribution or series of packages that need to be downloaded and compiled?

Click to expand...

Ya the major distros can do everything. Mandrake install actualy lets you choose a "workstation" install, or a "server" install. In addition to getting the extra sotware needed to server, the mandrake "server" install changes some basic options, like it defaults to a higher level of security and such than the workstation.

I don't know how the install options are in the other distros, but red hat, suse, slackware, mandrake, debian, can all be set up as workstation or server. Like really easy.

remember at heart, linux is a multiuser multitasking OS, and almost wants to be server, so its easy to setup that way.

If ALL you are looking for is a server, there are even server specific small distros. For a "know not much" newbie, the linux router project is pretty good. On one or two boot floppies, you can get a complete linux server system with a pretty good firewall, that is so small it will work real good on a 486. Now, this doesn't come with GUI or other tools needed to be a workstation, but it works as a server.
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/