Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #1554 > unrolled thread

Good Linux to start with

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Good Linux to start with Halberstam Reader <joe.snod@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 18:40 -0700
    Re: Good Linux to start with John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2011-07-03 20:53 -0500
    Re: Good Linux to start with bosco <boscopelone@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 21:16 -0600
      Re: Good Linux to start with bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) - 2011-07-04 04:07 +0000
    Re: Good Linux to start with Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2011-07-04 03:28 +0000
      Re: Good Linux to start with Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-07-04 12:04 -0400
        Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-04 23:07 +0200
    Re: Good Linux to start with David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-07-04 10:15 +0200
    Re: Good Linux to start with Bob Henson <rh547477@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 10:00 +0100
    Re: Good Linux to start with Torsten Mueller <dev-null@shared-files.de> - 2011-07-04 11:10 +0200
      Re: Good Linux to start with Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2011-07-04 16:11 +0530
    Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kimber <richardkimber@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-04 06:59 -0500
      Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-04 13:35 +0100
        Re: Good Linux to start with David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-07-04 15:25 +0200
      Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-05 11:41 +0100
    Re: Good Linux to start with jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com (Jack McCue) - 2011-07-04 12:50 +0000
    Re: Good Linux to start with Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-07-04 07:47 -0700
    Re: Good Linux to start with ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2011-07-04 14:50 +0000
    Re: Good Linux to start with Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com> - 2011-07-04 17:23 +0000
      Re: Good Linux to start with Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2011-07-05 07:39 +0200
        Re: Good Linux to start with JohnT <john@example.com> - 2011-07-05 07:52 +0000
          Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-05 15:51 +0000
          Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-06 03:46 +0200
            Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-07 22:35 +0200
              Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-07 23:06 +0200
                Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 13:44 +0200
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 08:58 +0100
                    Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-13 09:41 +0100
                    Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 10:07 +0100
                      Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 12:46 +0100
                        Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 13:47 +0100
                          Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 14:20 +0100
                            Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 15:26 +0100
                    Re: Good Linux to start with John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2011-07-13 07:37 -0500
                      Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 14:16 +0100
                        Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-13 14:35 +0100
                          Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 15:13 +0100
                            Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 16:36 +0100
              Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-08 08:53 +0100
                Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 14:09 +0200
    Re: Good Linux to start with Anton Meyninger <anton.meyninger@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 13:07 +0200
      Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-06 03:52 +0200
        Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-06 12:16 +0100
          Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-06 19:10 +0200
            Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-06 18:30 +0100
              Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-07 01:57 +0200
                Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-07 03:26 +0000
                  Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 05:48 +0100
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2011-07-07 11:15 +0530
                    Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 07:14 +0100
                Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 05:45 +0100
                Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-07 09:53 +0100
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:41 +0100
                    Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-07 11:32 +0100
                      Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 13:49 +0100
                        Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-07 15:01 +0100
                          Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 15:16 +0100
                            Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-07 23:04 +0200
                              Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-08 08:58 +0100
                                Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 14:19 +0200
                              Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-08 13:44 +0100
                                Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-11 09:39 +0100
                        Re: Good Linux to start with blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 19:02 +0000
                      Re: Good Linux to start with blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 19:01 +0000
              Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-07 03:16 +0000
                Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 05:47 +0100
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-07 05:00 +0000
            Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-07 22:42 +0200
              Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-07 23:41 +0200
                Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 14:07 +0200
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-09 02:05 +0200
                    Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-09 21:10 +0200
                      Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-10 02:16 +0200
                        Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 10:42 +0100
                          Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-11 05:03 +0200
                            Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-11 08:23 +0100
                              Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-11 09:52 +0100
                            Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-11 11:16 +0100
                      Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-10 03:49 +0000
                        Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-11 13:56 +0200
                          Re: Good Linux to start with blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 22:31 +0000
                            Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-12 15:30 +0200
                              Re: Good Linux to start with blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 22:28 +0000
    Re: Good Linux to start with Feranija <feranija@net...> - 2011-07-06 11:37 -0700
    Re: Good Linux to start with TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2011-07-18 09:35 -0400

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#1554 — Good Linux to start with

Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
the next best?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1555

Halberstam Reader writes:
> I've heard that Debian is best, but a major pain to install, and that
> a newbie should avoid it.

Not true.  Get the netinst CD and do a Net install.
<http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/>
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1556

On 2011-07-03 19:40:05 -0600, Halberstam Reader <joe.snod@yahoo.com> said:

> 
> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
> a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
> the next best?

You are going to get many answers. None of them will be correct for 
you. Go to distrowatch.com and read all about the top ten or top 15 
distributions. Look for one that appeals to you on more than one level.

Next, learn how to burn an iso if you do not, download one of the 
distro's, burn an iso and run it as a live cd.

Gl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1558

In article <2011070321165716807-boscopelone@yahoocom>, bosco <boscopelone@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2011-07-03 19:40:05 -0600, Halberstam Reader <joe.snod@yahoo.com> said:
>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
>> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
>> a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
>> the next best?
>
>You are going to get many answers. None of them will be correct for 
>you. Go to distrowatch.com and read all about the top ten or top 15 
>distributions. Look for one that appeals to you on more than one level.
>
>Next, learn how to burn an iso if you do not, download one of the 
>distro's, burn an iso and run it as a live cd.

There are also many places that will send you a CD/DVD with distros on for 
low or no charge (eg $5 each). That option might suit if you aren't keen on 
"isos" or burning ? :)

Good luck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1557

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:

> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
> to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's the next
> best?

I'd recommend LFS.


-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as the antimatter containment vessel ruptured.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1570

On Sun, 4 Jul 2011, Dan C wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:
>
>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
>> to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
>> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's the next
>> best?
>
> I'd recommend LFS.
>
You might as well, these threads always result in all the common options 
being suggested.

Once again, the original poster should know that all linux distributions 
pull from the same pool of kernel, utilities and applications.  The only 
difference between distributions is philosophy (what to include, where to 
put it, how to install, who to aim it at).  So once installed, many 
distributions will be about the same as the other (of course there are 
plenty of second tier distributions that aim for a niche, like music 
recording or older hardware, which are deliberately limited from the get 
go). The install process is often the most different bit between 
distributions, and even then there's overlap, since some distributions 
derive from other main distributions and thus use the same installer (or 
at least package system).

If you actually know computers, the distribution won't matter much.  A lot 
of books spend endless time telling people how to install, then barely 
spend any time on using Linux, when except for distribution surfers, a 
user will spend more time actually using Linux than installing it.

Keep a log, so the next time the process won't be as formidable.  When you 
add something that isn't in the distribution, add a note to the log, 
including any information that seems pertinent at the time.  When you run 
a program for the first time, keep track of the flags you use when running 
it, so if it's something you don't use that often, you won't have to fuss 
the next time. The more things you put in the log, the easier it is to 
duplicate something in the event of a disaster (some of the worry in such 
cases isn't so much about what was lost, but not having a good indicator 
of what was lost).

    Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1578

On Monday 04 July 2011 18:04 in comp.os.linux.misc, Michael Black 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On Sun, 4 Jul 2011, Dan C wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:
>>
>>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
>>> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best,
>>> but a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it. 
>>> What's the nextbest?
>>
>> I'd recommend LFS.
>>
> You might as well, these threads always result in all the common
> options being suggested.
> 
> [...]
> If you actually know computers, the distribution won't matter much.

I beg to differ on that.  "Knowing (about) computers" is a very 
stretchable concept, and generally, when we get questions like this on 
Usenet, the term "a competent (non-Linux) computer person" (sic) more 
correctly translates as "someone very accustomed to Microsoft Windows".

And there's the catch, because then you can go the way of a distribution 
which caters very much to the habits and thought patterns of a typical 
Windows user - which are all wrong when it comes to information 
technology - or the way of a distribution which remains more true to the 
UNIX-nature of GNU/Linux.

Using the latter will be more fulfilling and will yield a much more 
secure and robust system.  Using the former will be easier for the 
(ex-)Windows user, but reduces the quality of GNU/Linux as the multi-
user UNIX-style operating system it is.

LFS, Gentoo and Slackware are distributions which require some more work 
and are geared towards people who really understand computer and 
operating system technology, but they will drive a newbie from the 
Windows world up the walls.  Make that up the ceiling, even, judging by 
the reactions from "competent (non-Linux) computer persons" (sic) in 
newsgroups like alt.os.linux.ubuntu.  And Ubuntu is about as dumbed down 
as you can get - short of going with Linspire of course - because it is 
aimed at people who adhere the single-user appliance paradigm of 
Microsoft Windows.

And now the big word has fallen: paradigm.  Because that's what it's all 
about.  Longtime Windows users are stuck in a paradigm where a computer 
is a single-user appliance, and where things like frequent reboots, 
filesystem fragmentation (and the regular need to defragment it), 
regular reinstalls of the operating system and the necessity to run a 
firewall on a machine hooked up to the internet via a domestic 
connection are all considered perfectly normal.  Because Microsoft has 
portrayed the properties of its Windows platform as being the properties 
of /the/ computer.

Despite the efforts of many GNU/Linux distributions and software 
developers to turn GNU/Linux into a kind of Microsoft Windows - or only 
slightly better, OS X - GNU/Linux is still a UNIX system, and should 
remain that way.  For now, it can still be used either in the server 
room or on a workstation, but I'm afraid that by catering too much to 
the Windows paradigm in an attempt to lure over users from the Windows 
camp - and many distribution vendors are commercial entities, so that's 
exactly what they're aiming at - there will eventually ensue a schism 
between "GNU/Linux for servers" and "GNU/Linux for desktops", similar to 
how Microsoft itself sells different types of Windows versions, with one 
version not being able to do what the other version does, because the 
kernel is different, the libraries are different, et al.

Therefore, even though Dan C's advice was both sarcastic and sound at 
the same time - since trying out LFS is the hardest but at the same time 
also the best schooling one could have at learning about GNU/Linux - 
/my/ advice would be to use something like openSUSE, Fedora, Mandriva 
(2010.2) or PCLinuxOS.  

Debian is not bad qualitywise, but heavily plagued with "political 
correctness", and it has confusing distribution labeling.  There is 
Debian Stable (which means that you're stuck with software from the 
previous century), Debian Testing (which is a current but sufficiently 
stable release) and then there is Debian Unstable, also known as Sid 
(which is bleeding edge and cannot be considered stable by any means).

Next to that, many distributions now also already diversify between what 
kind of desktop environment you will be using.  For instance, Ubuntu 
proper comes with Unity, although Gnome 2 is still an option.  Kubuntu 
comes with KDE 4.  Xubuntu comes with XFCE.  Lubuntu comes with LXDE.  

And sure, you can install one of those and download all the packages for 
running another desktop environment if you so desire - because after 
all, you can have as many desktop environments installed as you want - 
but only if you (a) *know* that you can do that, and (b) *how* you 
should go about at doing it.  Most *buntu users don't even get beyond 
the stage where they pick one and stick with it because that's what 
they've chosen to install.  And the *buntus are not the only 
distributions going that way.  Several others are opting for one 
graphical user interface only, or a choice of different .iso images for 
different desktop environments.

One of the complaints we GNU/Linux advocates get from Windows users is 
that GNU/Linux offers too much choice.  But that isn't the problem.  The 
problem is that there isn't enough documentation around to inform people 
on what choices they should make, nor about the fact that making one 
choice does not preclude changing over without having to fully reinstall 
the entire operating system.  And once again, all of that stems from the 
fact that many distributions are commercial entities - yes, something 
like Ubuntu is freely downloadable, but Canonical certainly isn't a 
charitable organization - and that they are aiming at the Windows 
userbase and easy success.

But that all said, I would first and foremost recommend that the OP 
would download and burn a few Live CDs (or Live DVDs) - distrowatch.com 
will list those available and will even ship them to you at a small cost 
if need be - and check out the various offers, and that he'd do some 
technical reading to familiarize himself with the innards of a GNU/Linux 
system, before he'd go and install a distribution to his hard disk.

GNU/Linux is not user-unfriendly.  It just expects users to be a little 
more computer-friendly.  Or perhaps more cynically put...:

	"It is not that UNIX is not userfriendly per se.  It's just
	very picky about which users it is friendly with."

;-)

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1559

On 04/07/2011 03:40, Halberstam Reader wrote:
>
> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
> a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
> the next best?

Probably the best choice these days is <http://www.linuxmint.com/>. 
It's aimed at ease of use, has a friendly community, and comes with many 
of the bits and pieces that otherwise cause problems for newbies (such 
as mp3 libraries, non-open graphics drivers, etc.).

As has been said, you'll get lots of answers - some serious, some not so 
serious.  If you've got a fast internet link, try out some live CD's 
(Mint first, of course).  If you don't have a fast link, or you have a 
throttled link, then your best bet is probably the DVD attached to a 
Linux magazine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1560

On 04/07/2011 02:40, Halberstam Reader wrote:
> 
> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
> a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
> the next best?

There are nearly as many answers to this as there are people. Having
been through this process a while back, I too would go for a variety of
Linux Mint. Linux Mint 10 (11 has some not too serious problems) or
earlier is a doddle to set up from an .iso burnt to DVD and usually run
"first rattle out of the box".

Linux Mint Debian is fine if you want a rolling distribution, but is, as
you suggested in your question, far from routine to set up - for
example, you will have to find your own WiFi drivers on the web and
research how to apply them. Having downloaded the .iso and installed
Mint Debian, the list of updates to be applied the first time you use it
is bigger than the original .iso - they don't update the .iso often enough.

Having said that, I'm using Mint Debian on my WiFi laptop as first
choice at the moment because some bits of Debian suit my needs better.
However, if I were to change versions, it would be back to Mint 10 -
which is certainly the way to go if you want a simple install and easy
use whilst you learn about Linux. Then wait for v 12 and skip 11.

-- 
http://www.galen.org.uk


I can't see the point in the theatre. All that sex and violence. I get
enough of that at home. Apart from the sex, of course. -  Baldrick -
Sense and Senility

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1561

Halberstam Reader <joe.snod@yahoo.com> schrieb:

> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
> person to install on a computer.

Competent? Why not Arch? Arch is
- slim but scalable,
- independent (note this!),
- transparent,
- easy to configure,
- well documented
- and has a large community.

Often people are told Arch is not for beginners because the user needs
some experience. I would say experience is always good. But even a
beginner can install an Arch system with X11 on top in an hour or so
using one of the more or less official installation guides. And than he
can get his own experience himself and learn much more than on "full
automatic" systems like Ubuntu or openSuse.

One thing could be a problem for beginners: Arch's rolling release
philosophy and the continuous updates every day. 99.9% of the updates
are safely installed by Arch's very stable pacman program. But yes, it
can happen that the user must control or tune some things manually. This
means the user has than to edit /etc/rc.conf or so. But normally he will
truely be able to do this.

T.M.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1574

On 07/04/2011 02:40 PM, Torsten Mueller wrote:
> Halberstam Reader<joe.snod@yahoo.com>  schrieb:
>
>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
>> person to install on a computer.
>
> Competent? Why not Arch? Arch is
> - slim but scalable,
> - independent (note this!),
> - transparent,
> - easy to configure,
> - well documented
> - and has a large community.
>
> Often people are told Arch is not for beginners because the user needs
> some experience. I would say experience is always good. But even a
> beginner can install an Arch system with X11 on top in an hour or so
> using one of the more or less official installation guides. And than he
> can get his own experience himself and learn much more than on "full
> automatic" systems like Ubuntu or openSuse.

The one click install of either Debian-Live (http://live.debian.net/) or 
LinuxMint (http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1725) will take just 18-20 
minutes on Core2 Duo; why waste 1 hour?

> One thing could be a problem for beginners: Arch's rolling release
> philosophy and the continuous updates every day. 99.9% of the updates
> are safely installed by Arch's very stable pacman program. But yes, it
> can happen that the user must control or tune some things manually. This
> means the user has than to edit /etc/rc.conf or so. But normally he will
> truely be able to do this.

No doubt, ArchLinux is also a good distribution, but I for one 
shall/will not recommend it to a beginner as yet.

FYI, the Debian 'testing' introduced rolling-release long ago, which is 
well tested concept and, or technology merging of customized 
configuration file and restarting of services is handled in a much 
better manner by 'apt-get/aptitude (dist-)upgrade' ;)

@OP, try http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/, hope that helps :)

GNU/Linux distributions are build and maintained by a number of 
commercial and non-commercial organizations completely pre-configured, 
with almost all the standard features, additional applications and, or 
enhancements, to specifications set by that organization or community 
along with setup utilities and automated installers. Most of the popular 
Linux distributions now include a Live CD variant, which in some cases 
is also the preferred installation medium.

First major difference is how they select, patch, build and distribute 
packages and, or updates including security fixes.

Second, how their package management system handles locally customized 
configuration files.

Third is system-initialization like sysvinit, upstart and, or systemd.

Last, but not the least is default system and. or user's shell including 
command-line completion in an interactive mode.

The default system as well as user's shell is bash on ArchLinux, which 
is too big and too slow. There are some subtle differences between bash 
and traditional versions of sh, mostly because of the POSIX 
specification. Aliases are confusing in some uses. Shell builtin 
commands and functions are not stoppable/restartable. Compound commands 
and command sequences of the form `a ; b ; c` are not handled gracefully 
when process suspension is attempted. When a process is stopped, the 
(bash) shell immediately executes the next command in the sequence. It 
suffices to place the sequence of commands between parentheses to force 
it into a subshell, which may be stopped as a unit. Array variables may 
not (yet) be exported. There may be only one active coprocess at a time.

-- 
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
(http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1562

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:

> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
> to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's the next
> best?

Ubuntu is Debian-based and is easy to install on most machines (ease of 
installation, in my experience, does depend on your hardware).  On my 
current machine I seem to need to use the alternate install disk rather 
than the normal live CD.

-- 
Richard Kimber
Political Science Resources
http://www.PoliticsResources.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1563

Richard Kimber wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:
> 
>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
>> to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
>> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's the next
>> best?
> 
> Ubuntu is Debian-based and is easy to install on most machines (ease of 
> installation, in my experience, does depend on your hardware).  On my 
> current machine I seem to need to use the alternate install disk rather 
> than the normal live CD.
> 
Debian Ubuntu and Mint are all essentially the same chassis, but differ 
in what you get by default, rather than have to work out how to get, and 
I THINK details in the installation.

Debian targets those who juts want stability.  Ubuntu is more of a 
'peoples;' distro and targets first time users and has good support forums.

Mint is aimed at first time users who want multimedia goodies.

I stated with Debian years ago simply because that's what a friend had 
pre burned .

Today I'd probably go with Mint as I am doing more multimedia than I 
ever expected.

And keep Debian for the servers. Where rock solid and no frills is the aim.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1565

On 04/07/2011 14:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Richard Kimber wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:
>>
>>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
>>> to install on a computer. I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
>>> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it. What's the next
>>> best?
>>
>> Ubuntu is Debian-based and is easy to install on most machines (ease
>> of installation, in my experience, does depend on your hardware). On
>> my current machine I seem to need to use the alternate install disk
>> rather than the normal live CD.
>>
> Debian Ubuntu and Mint are all essentially the same chassis, but differ
> in what you get by default, rather than have to work out how to get, and
> I THINK details in the installation.
>
> Debian targets those who juts want stability. Ubuntu is more of a
> 'peoples;' distro and targets first time users and has good support forums.
>
> Mint is aimed at first time users who want multimedia goodies.
>
> I stated with Debian years ago simply because that's what a friend had
> pre burned .
>
> Today I'd probably go with Mint as I am doing more multimedia than I
> ever expected.
>
> And keep Debian for the servers. Where rock solid and no frills is the aim.

That's similar to what I have.  Debian on servers at home and at the 
office, Mint on the family machine and laptop (and the mother-in-law's 
laptop).  I have Fedora on my home and office workstations, but if I 
were starting again I would probably have Debian or Mint Debian edition 
on those.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1585

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 06:59:42 -0500, Richard Kimber
<richardkimber@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:
>
>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
>> to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
>> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's the next
>> best?
>
>Ubuntu is Debian-based and is easy to install on most machines (ease of 
>installation, in my experience, does depend on your hardware).  On my 
>current machine I seem to need to use the alternate install disk rather 
>than the normal live CD.

I'd always recommend the alternate disk if you know you are going to
install the OS.  You can upgrade from the alternative disk, which you
can't do from the Live CD.

I picked Ubuntu because I wanted an easy to use distro for the kids
and that I expected the community support* to be good due to its
popularity.

* However I have never been offerred any useful help for problems for
which could I not find a solution on my own.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1564

Hi

Halberstam Reader <joe.snod@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
> person to install on a computer.
I would do a google search for 
   distro chooser
there are enough of them, that may give you an
idea were to start.  Once you think you have
an answer check out http://distrowatch.com/
as someone else suggested to learn more about
what the site(s) said was good for you to try.

> What's the next best?
I know what is best for me :)  Best for you will
probably be different.

Have fun.  Learning linux was enjoyable for me
and as a bonus I was able to apply a lot of that
learning to my career!
John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1566

On 2011-07-04, Halberstam Reader <joe.snod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
> a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
> the next best?

The advice I always give when this question comes up is: figure out
from whom you hope to get the most help, and pick whatever that person
or group uses.  Most distros are similar enough that any linux person
will figure it out eventually, but different enough that someone
providing you free help won't want to spend a huge amount of time
figuring things out.

If this newsgroup will be your primary help path, almost any popular
distro should work out fine.

--keith


-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1567

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:

> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
> to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's the next
> best?

I consider Debian to be no more difficult to install than anything else. 
It may have once been a PITA, but no more. IMHO, you'll have no 
particular problem with Debian if you try it.

Visit distrowatch.com and pick something from the hit page rankings. My 
own personal preference is to use something which uses debian package 
management (that includes Ubuntu and a host of others) simply because 
I've had problems from time to time with rpm bases systems - though I 
admit I've not used one in a year or two.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1572

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:

> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
> to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's the next
> best?

For the Linux firsttimer, particularly the Windows users, I always 
recommend PCLinuxOS.

Stef

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1581

On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:23:18 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:40:05 -0700, Halberstam Reader wrote:
>
>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer person
>> to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but a major
>> pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's the next
>> best?
>
>For the Linux firsttimer, particularly the Windows users, I always 
>recommend PCLinuxOS.

When I bought my first Windows computer back in 1999, I tried to instal Linux,
but failed. 

I tried on and off over the years, but none of the distros seemed to like the
nVidia graphics cards my computers were equipped with.

Finally at the beginning of this year I successfully installed Fedora 14, from
a disc that came with a magazine. I had sried other distros from previous
issues of the same magazine, but none of them worked. Perhaps if I were more
of a computer fundi I would have been able to make them work. 

I liked the Ubuntu distro because it had a whole lot of other software bundled
with it, though I dislike the "sudo" thing, which misses one of the big
attractions of Linux to me - being able to log in as Root to tweak the system,
and then log out and log in as myself to use it without risk of inadvertently
damaging it.

But anyway, I liked Fedora because of the easy install, and it worked. 


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web