Which Linux Install Should You Start With [closed]

Question

I've seen that a lot of people across the trilogy of sites use Linux as their operating system. I am thinking about installing it on my computer to replace a (disfunctional) version of Windows 7.

My Question is, what version of Linux should you start with? And is it there a progression into other versions of linux?

(NOTE: in its first revision the title was Which Linux Install Did You Start Out With, but that didn't match the actual question.)

Answer 1

I started with Ubuntu, of course. I've also dabbled in Linux Mint a bit, but I always end back with Ubuntu.

To be perfectly honest, I think Ubuntu is one of the easiest transition OSs for a Windows user. The amount of time they've spent making everything "just work", to coin a phrase, really pays off. Once you're more technically advanced, you can pull out the console and really do some damage.

The other huge plus, in my opinion, is that it works so well on low-end hardware. My old Dell laptop is Ubuntu now, and spends its time in the garage on my workbench.

Answer 2

The one your guru is using.

Seriously, find an experienced user who is willing to help you through the rough spots. Local is best, but internet is OK as long as you can access it on a machine other than the one you're going to be configuring.

Then use what they use. Because they will be able to provide better, faster, and more sophisticated help on that distribution than any other.

Answer 3

Right now the easiest is as many mentioned, Ubuntu. From there you can easily evolve later by using Debian, from which Ubuntu is derived. Otherwise you can give Mandriva a try instead, and evolve later to RedHat, Suse and friends.

There are two main groups of Linux distributions : the Debian family (using .deb packages: Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, Knoppix, Mepis, etc) and the RedHat family (using rpm packages: RedHat, Fedora, Mandriva, Suse, CentOS, etc). There are distributions using other packages format (the Slackware family, Gentoo, Arch...) but they usually are tougher to the newcomer.

Answer 4

I started with Ubuntu, because until recently they were the only distro with fairly robust support for wireless cards. Now I mostly use Fedora on personal machines, because of its similarities to RHEL, which I use a decent amount at work.

For a beginner to Linux, I would recommend Ubuntu for a number of reasons, but the biggest being the community. Their forums are extremely helpful and should always be one of the first resources used when you run into a head-scratcher.

Answer 5

I started with MkLinux, then I think I switched to YellowDog. At some point (around potato, I think) I started dabbling in Debian and finally replaced my YDL install with Debian.

When I got a job working with Linux, they recommended RedHat. So, I had a RedHat 6.2 install for a while. At some point RedHat decided that killing all running sshd's was an OK thing to do while applying a security update (as well as plenty of other annoyances), and so we switched to a sane release — Debian Woody.

I've pretty much used Debian exclusively since, with the exception of before Debian had an AMD64 port, even an unofficial one, I used SuSE on an AMD64 box. That was painful. What do you mean boot it from a CD to upgrade?!

Nowadays, when I recommend Linux to people, I give them Ubuntu discs. They can upgrade to Debian someday when they no longer need the handholding :-D

Answer 6

Whan changing from Windows to Linux I recommend Linux Mint, it's based on Ubuntu and so it's very stable and user friendly. Mint's default look is a bit like Windows. The advantage of Mint is that all codecs, Adobe Flash, Java and stuff are installed by default so will be able to start over right after finishing the setup which is also very easy.

I still use Mint on my Laptop and am very happy with it.

Answer 7

I started with Ubuntu using a wubi install for one of the simplest dual boot experiences I have ever seen. I recommend and do this for friends that are thinking of switching. If they decide against linux the un-install is fast, painless, and leaves no tracks. Using this method windows is the default in the boot sequence. This is the route I went on my first install and fell in love with ubuntu.

I found that I almost never booted windows anymore (but wanted to keep it), so ran the wubi uninstall, cleaned up and defragged the windows install, ran the normal ubuntu install which now puts in on a native partition and bumps it to first in the default boot order.

Family of 7 now all happily running Jaunty.

Answer 8

Technically Ubuntu 4.04, but I couldn't get basic drivers working. So I switched to Gentoo, which was the first distro I actually used.

Answer 9

My first was Yggdrasil "Plug-and-Play Linux", Fall 1994. I installed it but failed to grok anything. Later I dabbled with Slackware, but didn't really get into it seriously until RedHat 4 or 5.

Answer 10

You might want to start with Omega - Fedora for the rest of us.

Omega is a completely free and open source Linux based operating system and a Fedora remix suitable for desktop and laptop users. It is a installable Live CD for regular PC (i686 architecture) systems. It has all the features of Fedora and number of additional software including multimedia players and codecs by default. Omega plays any multimedia content (including MP3) or commercial DVD's out of the box.

• Simple and effective GNOME Desktop Environment. Other choices available in the repository
• Plays MP3 and all your multimedia content out of the box.
• Saves bandwidth by downloading only binary delta's using Presto yum plugin by default.
• Gnote note taking application.
• Xine and Mplayer frontends
• Includes the latest updates

Answer 11

Red Hat

Answer 12

RedHat 5, stuck with it until 6.3; then dabbled with SuSE 7.2, Mandrake, Slackware, then Debian. A couple years of Gentoo then back to Debian then on to Ubuntu.

There's about 20 other distros I've played with inbetween :D

Answer 13

I started with SLS Linux followed ~4 months later by Slackware which I use on my main system still/again, after a 8 year spell with very very (hand) updated and customized RedHat 6.1

I also run Ubuntu on a NetBook and OpenSuse 11.2 on a laptop nowadays

Now, for the second part, I don't think there is a right or wrong distro to start with. Depends on how much of a tinkerer you are, or what your goal is.

If you just want it to work, no fuss, you probably want a major distro like Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuSE or Mandriva and Mint.

If you are really interested in being more involved in what make a Linux and Unix system tick, you might want to choose Slackware, plain Debian or Gentoo, as they are less reliant on GUI tools for administration and other tasks, so you get to understand better how the pieces work together.

Answer 14

Red Hat 4 (commercial version). Then I switched to Fedora 7,8,9,10,11.

Answer 15

I bought a CD copy of Mandrake about 10 years ago - I was interested but ultimately disappointed. Although, it's amazing how far the distributions have come since then.

I've subsequently used Ubuntu, Mint, Damn Small and Puppy Linux.

Answer 16

Ubuntu for sure! It is the most user friendly, in my opinion. From there, once you get comfortable with the file system and other changes, there are many different "flavors" to try!

Answer 17

You should probably start with Ubuntu. As far as Linux distributions go, it is pretty polished. In my opinion the best thing about it for a beginner is it's large community.

If you end up liking Linux you will probably want something like Arch Linux which is, in my opinion, the best distribution available.

Answer 18

Slackware circa 1994, then RH 4, 5, 6.1, Mandrake 8,9, and finally Ubuntu

Answer 19

I started off trying a whole lot, most of which I cant even remember ..

• red hat
• ubuntu (also xubuntu and kubuntu)
• yellow dog
• linspire
• mandrake
• some other random ones

Eventually got onto FreeBSD (UNIX) and now a full time Mac user (basically BSD with a nice GUI).

Answer 20

Started with Red Hat (commercial version), moved to Mandrake when it came with a copy of Linux Format from the local bookstore, then moved to Ubuntu 4.04 and have been with Ubuntu since then.

Answer 21

Slackware => RedHat 6 => Fedora => SuSE 9/10 => Ubuntu

I've stuck with Ubuntu ever since, because its mostly painless.

Answer 22

Start with Ubuntu, live with ubuntu and stick to Ubuntu.

Anything else, still Ubuntu!

Answer 23

Red Hat > Mandriva (very good for a long time) > Ubuntu now really liking Ubuntu

Answer 24

I started with MkLinux. This was a mistake. Lucky it's a mistake you probably couldn't repeat if you tried really hard. If you're actually amazingly talented enough to make it work in this day and age, it probably wouldn't end up being a mistake, since you'd have to fix everything mistaken about it in the process.

I then tried RedHat before there was a bunch of "We offer RedHat" distributions. Because back then, RedHat offered RedHat with or without cost, which was identical to all the other RedHats people used. This actually didn't go so well. As in, it wasn't worth the effort. I then briefly tried Yellow Dog Linux but noticed it was scarily similar.

I then tried Debian. This was wonderful. It was also the only Debian based system available at the time. I would now recommend Ubuntu for a wonderful first-time linux experience.

Then I started working with Solaris. And I would recommend it for anyone. It was around this time I got sick or rebuilding the Linux kernel just to keep up with the latest packages that for some reason wanted to use the latest glibc. And I wasn't on the bleeding edge.

At the same time I decided to use a bsd. I tried the three major ones available and found NetBSD supported the most of my hardware and was actually a tad better documented then. This actually produced my longest uptime. What I liked best about the system at the time was that it was actually very simple by staying complex. Does that make sense? For the version I used there are no extra tools needed to administer a NetBSD box beyond sh and ed. You'll switch those to bash and vi in the process, but you'll never have to start X11 or run any kind of control panel or settings application, you won't have to restart after installing anything, there's only one right way to do each step, and that way is learnable, repeatable, and exact. Building the kernel is not an exercise in pruning. Configuring the file-system has no path-less-travelled (Rieser!). The same can be said of network setup (on the software side, assuming you don't like token ring) and running standard daemons.

As some point I tried a Knoppix and a Gnoppix. Neither managed to do the promised Myth stuff that they both said they were specifically built for.

Then I got wind of Gentoo and thought "I like NetBSD pkgsrc ports, so I might like portage." This actually convinced me that both portage and pkgsrc are seriously flawed in conception. It's just not a good idea to have OS developers spending all their time patching other people's software so it'll build and run on their OS. This is because 1/4 of the time something won't work the way it's documented that it should, or some option will be unavailable or some interdependency is impossible to fulfill while various maintainers are out of sync. Also building stuff this way, and Linux from scratch, are just a lot of wasted time. If you want to learn this stuff, pick up an older NetBSD release (3?) and a book.

Then I tried OpenSuse 10 just to see if anyone had actually approached the install process of a commercial product. I dare-say they have, as have Ubuntu and others now.

Currently I'm happy with Mac OS X. Yes. Really. My linux use is relegated to damn small linux and SystemRescueCD.

Answer 25

I start With Suse and it's realy easy for me to learn and work with it but after a while I switch to Ubuntu Because it's used by many of people and have goo repository and because it's debain based there are many people in Forums to response any of your Question. then I think if you want to start with Linux Ubuntu is good.

But for whom that the GUI is important to them I Suggest Kubuntu or Gentoo they are so Beautiful and can attract people to use Linux.

Answer 26

I think that for a former XP user PCLinuxOS is likely the most comfortable.

I've found that the main difficulty for former Windows users is installing new software. whatever distro you choose, I suggest that you visit the distro's official forum to get help from experienced users.

You'll often hear about KDE and Gnome. I think of it this way- KDE is more like Windows and Gnome is more like Mac. Not exactly, of course, but in the 'feel' of the OS.

Try a bunch of distros with live CDs. One of them will 'feel' most comfortable.

Answer 27

Sun Solaris in the computing centre where I used to go. Caldera and Minilinux/Microlinux (not sure about the name), an unknown distribution made by a friend.

For some reason, I have very fond memories of Sun's Solaris.