Which Linux distro?

[jayrev]

I currently have a dual boot computer at home running Windows 98 and Suse 8.something Linux. I'm considering giving that computer to the wife since she is beginning to use it often for a new artistic outlet, and I want to get a pure Linux machine for my own use.

I have plenty of professional experience with Unix, but my only Linux exposure has been with Suse. What other distros do you guys recommend? I think Debian won the favorite Distro poll in Linux Journal, but I've never used it.

Please offer suggestions. Thanks.

 

[Leif Roar]

I'd recommend Debian - primarily because the debian package format .deb is superior to the rpm format used by RedHat, Mandrake and Suse. On the Redhat or Mandrake systems I've used, I've normally ended up installing and upgrading practically all new software from by downloading the source-code and compile it myself.

It all depends on what you need, though. Mandrake's installer is by many considered to be the best, and they're also very good at hardware support. Suse is the "serious desktop" with oodles of programs included, and RedHat is of course the most common, and for which you can generally expect to find software prepared for in advance.

Besides the four major linux distributions there are a number of smaller niche-based distributions which have their own strong points. I don't have any experience with those, though.

Then, of course, there's always the various BSDs.

 

[shanek]

Yeah, but SuSE does come with YaST, which has a really good update utility, and there is a version of apt (its "apt" that makes the debian packages rock; .deb is more like a .zip file, apt is the package manager and dependency resolver) for rpms.

And if you want the power and security of Debian with easy-to-use GUIs and a great Linux desktop, check out LibraNet.

 

[jimlintott]

I have been happily using Mandrake as my primary desktop OS for several years. It is easier to install, maintain and use than MS WIndows. I'm using 9.2 now and it has tons of user apps available. Mandrake has the Mandrake Control Center which is a very easy way to install and update software as well as control all aspects of the machine.

If you want to dig a little deeper you can but I find that once I have it set to my liking that it is hassle free. I've played with many Linux distros and some of the BSDs. Mandrake is the easiest and I'm lazy.

 

[LFTKBS]

I'm a SuSE man, myself. I don't like the no ISO-download thing (because of YAST), but I hardly ever have to look for stuff that's not already on the CDs.

 

[Philip]

I'm glad someone posted this question because I've been wondering what distribution to use in the future.

I am not a computer professional like most of you are, so I'd like one that I can get support and easy updates without spending a huge amount.

I have been using Red Hat Linux for my Linux partition, but Red Hat is abandoning support for the low end market; the cheapest supported option for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 is $299 per year.

(I know Red Hat has spawned the Fedora Project, but I want someplace online that I can get help with the installation and video configuration problems that have occurred every time I've installed a new release of Linux.)

While I'm asking, is there any version of Linux that would allow me to use a monitor external to my laptop as an extended desktop like Windows does?

 

[ceptimus]

I've used Red Hat in the past, but I'm currently using the Mandrake distribution.

[edit: that's Mandrake, not Mardrake. I blame the stupid handwriting recognition, on this PDA]

 

[jimlintott]

I am not a computer professional like most of you are, so I'd like one that I can get support and easy updates without spending a huge amount.

I'm just a user and not a proffesional. Support is one of the reasons I use Linux. It is so well documented. When the man and info pages don't help I have frequently found the information I need via google. Most of the information is distro independent. Updates on my Mandrake machines are cetainly free. I imagine most are.

I'll try plugging a monitor into my laptop later and see if that works. I know that one day I wanted to try two monitors on the same machine and I had it working in about ten minutes. Likely it isn't a problem.

 

[shanek]

I am not a computer professional like most of you are, so I'd like one that I can get support and easy updates without spending a huge amount.

I think SUSE is what you want. The only real problem with SUSE is that you really need a high-speed connection, because the installation requires downloading the files form the internet. You can't just download an .iso and burn an installation CD like most of the others.

 

[LFTKBS]

Shanek is right, although I submit that it would be good to go to your local retailer and pick up the box & everything. Personal is $40, Professional is $80. Like 1/6 the price of Windows XP, better documentation, and you support open source (except, again for YaST).

 

[shanek]

Shanek is right, although I submit that it would be good to go to your local retailer and pick up the box & everything. Personal is $40, Professional is $80. Like 1/6 the price of Windows XP, better documentation, and you support open source (except, again for YaST).

What??? PAY for Linux??? Are you INSANE???????

 

[Philip]

Thanks. I checked out the SUSE Linux site and it does look good.

The YOU automatic update doesn't appear to be as comprehensive as Red Hat up2date (YOU doesn't update the kernel), but overall, for the price, it looks pretty good.

The installation support is limited to 3 months for Professional, but support is available after that for a fee.

Compared to y'all, I'm a techno-weenie, so I define support as someplace I can go and say "Help! My computer's doing this" and a support person will say "Do this."

I do need this help because, almost every time I've upgraded to a new version of Red Hat Linux, I've had trouble with the video configuration.

 

[Brian]

Is there a link to "Everything a layman who has never seen Linux needs to know"?
I want to set it up and use and mess with it just because it's there. After going to a few d/l sites I get a strong impression that I could really screw up my system by jumping in without knowing what I'm doing. I have 2 drives in my comp and a 30 gig laying around the house. Should I maybe have a Linux only drive?
Is it/does it have a shell? Would someone post a screenshot of what the Linux user sees when the Windows user sees a desktop?

 

[jimlintott]

Philip. I plugged a monitor into my laptop and it worked fine. The last time I installed Mandrake I didn't even have to touch the video settings they were all fine. I use Nvidia video cards and installing their 3d open GL driver is a little trickier but certainly not hard.

As for Linux web sites there are zillions. You can get a good start here.

Brian. Yes it can be run without a GUI just a plain shell which you can [ALT - F key] to several different shells (or consoles). Of course you can run a console whil in a GUI. I'll attach a screen shot of my desktop. KDE 3.1, I move my task bar to the top of the screen. KDE can be adjusted a million different ways. You can make it work just like Windows (without crashes). The translucent menus are supposed to make you go 'oooh'.

 

[shanek]

I want to set it up and use and mess with it just because it's there. After going to a few d/l sites I get a strong impression that I could really screw up my system by jumping in without knowing what I'm doing. I have 2 drives in my comp and a 30 gig laying around the house. Should I maybe have a Linux only drive?
Is it/does it have a shell? Would someone post a screenshot of what the Linux user sees when the Windows user sees a desktop?

The best thing you can do is download Knoppix. Just burn it to a CD and boot from the CD; no installing or messing with your system required. Here's a screenshot:

A 1024x768 version is here:

http://www.cyberbrinedreams.com/main/diary/img/knoppix.jpg

 

[Brian]

Thanks both of you.
I'm going to try the boot CD version.
What's the scary looking black screen on the 1st screen shot? Is that techie only stuff?

 

[corplinx]

I'd recommend Debian - primarily because the debian package format .deb is superior to the rpm format used by RedHat, Mandrake and Suse.

I suppose your typical MCSE turned linux geek type might think so. However, .deb sucks. Apt is a nifty program. Without apt however, .deb sucks about as bad as solaris packages.

Other thing about .deb bug me, you can't set global defaults with it if you are building your own debs. With rpm you just change those in the rpmrc.

Well, I am trolling. .deb doesn't "suck" but its certainly not nearly as robust as rpm. I've been using apt for rpm for years and doing fine. You get the best of both worlds, the automation of apt and the superior build system of rpm.

 

[corplinx]

Here's the deal, I have a dual ultrasparc running Debian/Sid, a powerbook g3 running Yellow Dog, a powermac g4 using Debian Woody, and at work my personal workstation runs Fedora. I admin around 14 Linux servers running different versions of redhat from 6.2 to 9.

The point, there is no magic distribution I can recommend and you will love. I recommend downloading a few and trying them out and seeing what you like.

The only one I recommend against is Mandrake. After running something easier to get into like RedHat for a while, you might try running Debian to see what using Linux was 4 years ago.

 

[jimlintott]

What's the scary looking black screen on the 1st screen shot? Is that techie only stuff?

It's nothing scary. It's just a terminal window running 'top' which is a little utility that shows all the running processes, the amount of ram and cpu usage.

If you are going to use Linux I suggest you aquaint yourself with the command line. It is exceptionally powerful and easy.

Corplinx is right about trying different distros. I've tried a bunch of them. The only one I didn't really make work was Gentoo. (Remember I'm lazy.)

 

[shanek]

I suppose your typical MCSE turned linux geek type might think so. However, .deb sucks. Apt is a nifty program. Without apt however, .deb sucks about as bad as solaris packages.

Other thing about .deb bug me, you can't set global defaults with it if you are building your own debs. With rpm you just change those in the rpmrc.

Well, I am trolling. .deb doesn't "suck" but its certainly not nearly as robust as rpm. I've been using apt for rpm for years and doing fine. You get the best of both worlds, the automation of apt and the superior build system of rpm.

I just thought I'd point out that there's absolutely no reason why you can't install rpm on a debian box.