OSDev.org

Hello All!

I have absolutely no experience with linux and am interested to 'broaden my horizons'.

How different are linux distros? Is it a case of picking a good distro, or do I just go for the first free download I come across? I would like something with a GUI, but coming from a MS-DOS 5 background am not scared of command lines!

The first thing I intend to do is install it VPC2004 just to get the hang of the installation and general 'feel'. It is possible that I may install it on a second hard drive if I like it (the intention is not to completely scrap Windows - more to run the 2 alongside one another).

Any suggestions much appreciated.

Cheers,
Adam

PS: The one I am looking at jumping in to at the moment is ubuntu - no particular reason

Ubuntu is popular right now so if you want to be trendy it's a good choice(haven't tried it). Fedora Core is good because it's Redhat based(lots of docs) but still gives you pretty cutting edge features. If you want stable get CentOS, it's a free repackaging of Redhat ES and is used by lots of hosting companies. Once you understand Linux a little and you want to know how a distro is put together you might want to look at Gentoo. You can always check out http://distrowatch.com/ to get an idea about which distros are popular.

I have always used mandrake linux (since changed it name) and would recommend it to anyone, easy as anything to install and used etc.

Notest distrowatch also lists Hobby OS .
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=links

You could run this small test to find out which distribution fits your needs. Probably this will be more helpful than asking people for their favorit choice..

regards,
gaf

Thanks for this - I will investigate all the suggestions. The test you gave the link to came up with kubuntu, so I'm downloading an iso image now...

Thanks again,
Adam

Took the test and it suggested, Mandriva, Ubuntu or Kubuntu. Maybe I should give Linux a try again.. It's been a while.

ArchLinux is worth mentioning too, It might not be best to start with Arch, but it's pretty good.

If you really want to learn how linux works, I recommend slackware. It's as vanilla as it gets, and doesn't have all the pretty guis obfuscating how things actually work. Not exactly newbie friendly, but if you are determined and can use google, it's worth it for the educational experience. "Mandrake is for newbies, Slackware is for newbies who don't want to stay newbies" I forget where I read that

Ubuntu is very good for new users, my mum uses it everyday and rarely asks me questions (unlike windows)

Your best bet if you have the time is to download a few and just give them a try.

Andrew

The test linked above is the first such test that included the Linux distro I actually use in the result set ( Slackware / Gentoo, I use Gentoo ). I am impressed!

Solar wrote:The test linked above is the first such test that included the Linux distro I actually use in the result set ( Slackware / Gentoo, I use Gentoo ). I am impressed!

Also the test gave me mandriva\Ubunto i use mandriva!

Mandriva == Mandrake. I used Mandrake as my first Linux, easy to use/install... but the version was terrible for updating.

I would have to suggest Ubuntu, it just works(TM). Ubuntu has a program repository in the same respect to Gentoo's Portage or FreeBSD's Ports system, though Ubuntu's repository consists of pre-compiled binaries as well... so no real need to compile from source (a slow, and generally useless process anyhow)

Solar wrote:The test linked above is the first such test that included the Linux distro I actually use in the result set ( Slackware / Gentoo, I use Gentoo ). I am impressed!

Dito here, same result. Running slackware for at least 8 years now, just have to compile bochs myself to get a binary I know and trust (for feature presence/absence). Never mind the 400+ char configure line

Oh, and of course a host compiler, bunch of cross compilers and compiler development tools.

SpooK wrote:...so no real need to compile from source (a slow, and generally useless process anyhow)

A process that has saved me lots of package compatibility headaches I had with SuSE, RedHat (pre Fedora), Knoppix, Debian, and Kubuntu. But I agree it's not for the faint of heart, weak in deciphering error messages, or low on CPU power.

Solar wrote: A process that has saved me lots of package compatibility headaches I had with SuSE, RedHat (pre Fedora), Knoppix, Debian, and Kubuntu. But I agree it's not for the faint of heard, weak of deciphering error messages, or low of CPU power.

Same here - and absolutely right about CPU Power

I went from a 500 MHz PIII to a 1,6 GHz CoreDuo... imagine the joy when KDE took less than a day.