Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, SecretSquirrel, notfred
ChrisDTC wrote:which should I use?
it will be my first linux install, I have an extra machine so I thought I would give it a shot
JJCDAD wrote:It's funny, I keep getting this urge to install a linux distro on one of my machines just to see what all the hype is about. Then I read a thread like this. People explaining which one is best for a beginner immediately start using words like apt, rpm, and repositories which are all Greek to me. Scary.
JJCDAD wrote:It's funny, I keep getting this urge to install a linux distro on one of my machines just to see what all the hype is about. Then I read a thread like this. People explaining which one is best for a beginner immediately start using words like apt, rpm, and repositories which are all Greek to me. Scary.
derFunkenstein wrote:JJCDAD wrote:It's funny, I keep getting this urge to install a linux distro on one of my machines just to see what all the hype is about. Then I read a thread like this. People explaining which one is best for a beginner immediately start using words like apt, rpm, and repositories which are all Greek to me. Scary.
I'm with you, though my time spent with OS X has been a good (albeit slow) introduction to such concepts. Nice and easy, start with DarwinPorts (renamed MacPorts) and move to Fink, which has a reasonably usable front-end called FinkCommander and no-fuss, no-muss pre-configured packages. I guess until someone has a really nice front-end for a Linux distro where you can add software repositories and install stuff from the GUI, it's going to have a hard time catching on with consumers like you and me.
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
bitvector wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:I guess until someone has a really nice front-end for a Linux distro where you can add software repositories and install stuff from the GUI, ...
You mean like Synaptic or Yum Extender?
JJCDAD wrote:It's funny, I keep getting this urge to install a linux distro on one of my machines just to see what all the hype is about. Then I read a thread like this. People explaining which one is best for a beginner immediately start using words like apt, rpm, and repositories which are all Greek to me. Scary.
emkubed wrote:Now imagine a single UI from which you can install just about every application, and handle all dependencies for you.JJCDAD wrote:It's funny, I keep getting this urge to install a linux distro on one of my machines just to see what all the hype is about. Then I read a thread like this. People explaining which one is best for a beginner immediately start using words like apt, rpm, and repositories which are all Greek to me. Scary.
You know how Windows Update patches and updates the OS? Imagine it did the same for your installed applications. Now imagine it under Linux.
derFunkenstein wrote:bitvector wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:I guess until someone has a really nice front-end for a Linux distro where you can add software repositories and install stuff from the GUI, ...
You mean like Synaptic or Yum Extender?
Dunno, never seen either one. Is it something installed by default with most distros?
emkubed wrote:Needlessly excessive pedantry demands that I point out that imagining something "under linux" for someone unfamiliar with linux is a rather large stepJJCDAD wrote:It's funny, I keep getting this urge to install a linux distro on one of my machines just to see what all the hype is about. Then I read a thread like this. People explaining which one is best for a beginner immediately start using words like apt, rpm, and repositories which are all Greek to me. Scary.
You know how Windows Update patches and updates the OS? Imagine it did the same for your installed applications. Now imagine it under Linux.
mattsteg wrote:Needlessly excessive pedantry demands that I point out that imagining something "under linux" for someone unfamiliar with linux is a rather large step
Synchromesh wrote:Definitely Ubuntu. FC is just not nearly as stable.
My personal favorites are Kubuntu and Xubuntu - look at those.
It's funny, I keep getting this urge to install a linux distro on one of my machines just to see what all the hype is about. Then I read a thread like this. People explaining which one is best for a beginner immediately start using words like apt, rpm, and repositories which are all Greek to me. Scary.
notfred wrote:Fedora isn't really about learning how things work under the covers, there are distros like Gentoo, Slackware and Linux From Scratch.
My problem with the RedHat stuff is it seems to do a lot of things in specialised RedHat ways - e.g. "run this config tool" plus it uses RPMs and all the dependency problems that brings.
Ubuntu on the desktop and Debian on the servers is my favoured way.
zer0 wrote:I'm a beginner myself. I went with Fedora 8 and I have no complaints. It doesn't have that feeling that everything "just works," but then again, if everything just worked on its own, there'd be nothing motivating me to learn more.
IMHO, you shouldn't base your choice on others' opinions. Ask yourself whether you want to install it solely as a curiosity, something for you to tinker with occasionally, or do you want to force yourself to gain a deeper understanding over time that simple occasional tinkering may not provide?
If you just wanna tinker from time to time and don't really ever want to get your hands dirty then go with Ubuntu, or even Mint, which I've heard some good things about recently. If you are really interested in learning how it all works then maybe go with Fedora instead. Its not necessarily any harder than Ubuntu, but occasionally things don't work and you do have to find a way to fix them or a way to do things differently, and for me thats the fun part
notfred wrote:How is this really any different than Debian-based distros (or really other distro families)? Debian and its derivatives do many things in "the Debian way" (e.g. don't edit grub's menu.lst, edit the comments and run update-grub). I prefer the Debian way because I'm used to it, but that's not a flaw of distros that don't work the same. And as far as RPMs go, I don't really like the format, but dependency problems really aren't that big of a deal any more now that RHEL/Fedora use yum for dependency resolution and there's a proliferation of external repositories. You only really run into dependency problems when you go off the beaten path and try to grab random rpms directly and install them. Now, that said, yum is slow and a memory hog and it's fragile, so that's terrible and I still prefer apt, but it does alleviate the dependency problems.My problem with the RedHat stuff is it seems to do a lot of things in specialised RedHat ways - e.g. "run this config tool"
lex-ington wrote:I wouldn't play up this issue too much. I still recommend Ubuntu above the others, but not because of that angle. You may have had a great experience, and it "just works" for some people, but most people have some number of issues with Ubuntu and sometimes when they switch, they are just trading one issue for another. Our LUG probably does 40-50 Ubuntu installs a year and the fraction of them that "just work" isn't very high (when "just work" is to the level of expectation of the users). Subjectively I can't say it's higher than Fedora, because we don't do a large enough number of Fedora installs to have a decent sample.I still consider myself a beginner, but made the switch from Fedora to Ubuntu because everything should "just work". Why shouldn't it work?