Which Linux Distributor

Hey everyone! Recently I have decided to dual-load Linux on my new laptop when I get it. Now I need to choose which distributor I want to use.

I read a lot about Unbuntu and that one sounds pretty good, Rodster recommends Mint but I'd like to get more discussion here on your opinions.

PErsonally, my knowledge of code is pretty limited so some of the more advanced ones may not be good for me. I also do not like Mac OSX at all so if any seem to mimic the basic UI of that, I will hate it.

Anyway, this is for all you Linux people to argue and attack each other all for my benefit! Have at it!

 

Mint is essentially similar to Ubuntu but with all the stuff you need for multimedia ready to go a bit easier. Either it or Ubuntu ought to be pretty easy to install.

I personally HATE the new Unity interface that Ubuntu 11.04 defaults to but you can choose classic Gnome for now when logging in.

 

Flame on!
Take OpenSUSE KDE Desktop.
Why I like it:
1)If you want latest package switch repo to tumbleweed.
2)The kernel is very responsive and custom tuned for Desktop purpose.
3)You can config it without firing up a terminal by using YAST.
4)It is stable and updated.

I don't care if Novell signed a contract with the devil. As long as the OS performs great it is good.

 

I guess i'm the resident Mint fanboy but weinter makes a good case for openSUSE and it is a very nice looking OS (i.e. Windows 7). Yast2 is very slick and like he mentioned no need to really use the Terminal.

 

There is no right answer. Burn a few LiveCDs/LiveDVDs and take several distros for a spin. In the beginning... or at least my beginning, I tried Ubuntu, Mint, openSUSE, Mepis, PCLinuxOS, and several others. For me, the KDE version of PCLinuxOS was the best fit and I've been running it for almost a year.

FYI... There are some changes in the works for PCLOS. Yum/yumex will be replacing apt/synaptic.

 

You have quite a few options:

• Linux Mint 11
• Linux Mint Debian Edition
• Ubuntu 11.04(Classic interface)
• Ubuntu 11.04(Default Unity interface)
• OpenSuSE KDE
• Mageia
• PCLinuxOS

I would personally recommend Linux Mint 11, Ubuntu 11.04(both interfaces), and OpenSuSE KDE.

 

Really depends what you want to do with linux. Mint is a pretty user-friendly experience out of the box and a decent way to bridge the gap between win7 and linux, opensuse is also good for this. Debian will give you a solid, stable linux experience and these days it really doesn't require too much previous knowledge of linux to jump in, and you can install any of the GUI packages out there (gnome, kde, xfce, ect) to make it look how you want it to. I would avoid ubuntu if you aren't looking for an OSX type experience, it really does feel similar with unity.

Most important thing to remember is that you can (and really should) use different distros for different purposes, I've got 4 different distros deployed at home/work right now.

 

Wow, is each linux distro a seperate operating system? And does that mean that you can have more than just the two on a laptop using the same dual-loading sort of thing? (Yeah I know... "Thing" is such a technical term... I have 0 experience with linux so far and very basic OS loading/formatting experience)

 

They all share the linux kernel but each one can be very different (or sort of similar) to the next. You can indeed have several different distros on the same computer, GRUB handles that (which is automatically setup/installed on the major distros today), it gives you a list of OS's to boot from... and depending on how you set up your laptop you will be seeing this very soon anyways, since you select to boot into win7 or your linux distro via grub as well.

 

Another vote for Mint or OpenSuse. Pardus is another KDE if that's your thing. I've read it's impressive but I've never used it.

Yeah there's a lot of choices in the Linux world, but there are a lot of choices for toothpaste too.

Linux is certainly not hard but congrats, you've already made it farther than most users!

 

that^.... There are plenty of distros out there.. just go to distrowatch.com and have a look around..but in general if you are just starting out my vote also goes to Mint (I currently have linux mint 11 on my asus eee), opensuse or ubuntu. You could always burn a live cd of all of those and take em for a spin ..
welcome to the linux world and have fun!

 

So assuming that I can't make up a final decision and I load 5 or so different distros onto my computer, is it easy to delete all traces of one that I don't want without harming the other 4?

 

Ehh... it's not difficult, but it isn't easy with most of them - ubuntu has the advantage over most others here, in that depending on how you install it (ie, WUBI) it can be easily uninstalled with a couple clicks.

If you are unsure which distro you'd like to run, I HIGHLY recommend grabbing a $15 8GB usb stick and setting up YUMI since you are on windows. It will even assist you in downloading the iso automatically for you. Then you can run multiple distros from one USB live stick, without actually installing anything (until you choose to do so via the "Install XX" on the desktop of the distro you boot into).

 

I've recently installed Ubuntu 11.04 alongside my current W7Pro setup. I picked Ubuntu because it's one of the easiest Linux OSes and because I used Wubi to install it which is much easier than using a CD or USB flashdrive. I like Ubuntu because install and removing apps is much easier and cleaner than Windows. Also all the programs are free as well and as good or better than OS X and Windows counterparts.

Most or all of the good browsers have an option to sync your settings across multiple OSes/computers. I used to use Firefox back before Google released their browser. Since then, I've been using Chrome because of Google sync and the IU.

Basically, you can find any program to run your files as you would in Windows.

Good luck on your search.

 

Honestly this is the best advice. Don't install anything until you test a few distros and see how you like them. download a distribution's .iso file and burn it to cd, then boot it. Even better would be to get a 4gb flash drive, and use Unetbootin or live linux usb creator to make a bootable flash drive with the distro of your choice. I like the latter because its easier to make a persistence file which lets you save settings and files, just like your using the real OS. With the flash drive method, you can try out as many distros as you like without having to waste any cds.

 

Ok that sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestions everyone! I'll start playing around with the different distros and decide which ones I like. It may take me a while (I don't want to just play with it for a few minutes. I plan to play with each for at least a day or so and get as much out of it as I can). but I'll let you guys know what I think.

 

Trying a few different ones is a great idea if you have time to mess around. Personally, I would suggest going with Ubuntu if you're new to Linux, since it has by far the largest userbase on the internet--you can easily find resolutions to most issues and customizations you want to make. I'm running the latest version of Ubuntu on my old Turion 64 Averatec, and it runs very well (I changed the default interface to classic Gnome).

 

Get Virtualbox [1] and try some distros there! This way you don't have to create USB sticks, reboot over and over again when you switch between trying a distro and doing work (on Windows) of which you don't know yet how to do it on Linux and you can compare different distros side by side.
Just don't judge the performance of a distro by how it works in Virtualbox. It's merely for look&feel and workflow tests.

[1] VirtualBox

 

The latest PCLinuxOS has just been released. Check it out here:

PCLinuxOS KDE 2011.6 is now available for download

I general prefer PCLinuxOS over other distros (especially Ubuntu) because:

• It is a rolling release. Your upgrades come along with your updates. No need to re-install every six months.
• It is measurably faster than Ubuntu. It uses the BFS kernel by default.
• It stays very current in its application and library versions. Ubuntu and its derivatives have a tendency to fall behind.

I tried Arch for a little while and, while it was fun to tinker with, it was not what i was looking for. I want a distro that works well, with the least amount of fuss on my part. I have not seen one better than PCLinuxOS in that regard.

 

If you want simple, go with OpenSUSE or Linux Mint.

If you want stable and reliable and are willing to read a bit of documentation when setting up your machine, use Debian. Once you've got it configured it will stay that way. Debian takes stability *very* seriously: in my experience it doesn't "just break." Ever.

If you want cutting edge and don't mind breakage, go with Fedora.

 

Scientific Linux is pretty good as well although the packages are not as new.
My main complain about it is that it is a essentially gnome centric distro.
Even if you install the KDE Desktop, some packages still have gnome dependencies.
I hate Gnome because they turn stupid trying to be Apple-like.
Why do you need to expose the windows then select the windows you want to work on in a 2 step process(with the painfully slow animation)?
Why remove click on the Windows taskbar tradition which is a 1 step process?
Why can't you open 2 Windows simultaneously to work on?

Note: My comments are based on early Gnome 3 if things changes update me. Thanks.

I think the obsessions with "elegant animations" and Apple is Cool Marketing ought to stop.

It is like when PowerPoint came out with tons of animation after a while people realize the animation is pointless and a waste of time...

 

I have OpenSuse installed on my laptop at the moment. I have been using it for the last few months as a test. I was interested in the Tumbleweed release that is supposed to provide a rolling release. So far, it has worked rather well. There have been a few times when I have run into dependency conflicts. But a workaround has been available in all cases. It offers the user a set of options on how to resolve the conflict. This is fine for experienced users. But, not for those seeking simplicity. Just setting up all the required repositories is more than most users will be able to figure out. In all the years I have been using PCLinuxOS, I have never ran into a dependency conflict. Also, even with Tumbleweed, Opensuse has been lagging behind PCLinuxOS in their packages release versions. My impression so far is that OpenSuse/Tumbleweed is too green and not yet ready for prime time. Again, PCLinuxOS is the simplicity king. It is also very stable and very up to date. Really, it is an amazing technical feat.

 

The dependency conflicts you mentioned are simply that because you added Tumbleweed, openSUSE does not know which repo do you want to use to provide the packages.
Simply just tell zypper the repo and it will fetch accordingly hence it wasn't any issue at all. Also TumbleWeed maintainer did not include certain packages so it isn't available if you activate Tumbleweed (because it would mean recompiling the kernel modules everytime kernel gets updated even though those kernel modules are not code updated = extra work for maintainer).
Kernel modules have to match the kernel versions.

I do not get what you mean by with TumbleWeed it is still lagging.
I am running TumbleWeed and the Kernel Version is 2.6.39.2-34, any other higher version?

 

I understand. But still, there is that level of complexity with the repos that does not exist with PCLOS.

What I meant with lagging was in reference to user land packages. For a while my Opensuse laptop was lagging behind my PCLOS PCs in KDE version. It finally caught up. At the moment I only see it lagging on two of my personally important programs:

Amarok 2.4.1 in PCLOS vs 2.4.0 in Opensuse

digiKam 1.9.0 in PCLOS vs 1.8.0 in Opensuse

But, that is not a big difference. So, maybe Tumbleweed is doing better with keeping up. Lets see how quickly they adopt the next KDE release. I'll let you know.

 

openSUSE would be my suggestion as well. Their gnome and KDE interfaces are both well polished. The software is pretty much stable. You get awesome support at their community forums. There are guides and everything for installing codecs, properietary drivers and lots of other post-installation stuff.

Ubuntu provides a more convenient one-click install for everything above, but you actually lose the fun of learning something in Linux.

 

IMHO, Ubuntu's also lost a lot of its focus on being a simple "just works" distro for beginners and is veering more towards a "lets show off the latest shiny toys" distro. That's fine if they can do it and keep it stable and full featured, but the exceedingly rocky PulseAudio and Unity introductions seem to indicate otherwise...

 

Pulseaudio had been buggy initially not only with Ubuntu, but in other distros as well. I know openSUSE have also had pulseaudio since 11.2 (may be even before ?) but they kinda made it stable since 11.3.

There are a few settings you might need to configure manually to get rid of any audio problems you have, but once you're past that it is very stable. One problem I had was that audio regularly used to disappear after some time of playback using some media player and restarting pulse audio was the only way to get back. But after using pavucontrol, padevchooser and other pulse audio tools, I've got sound working in both HDMI as well as the regular 3.5mm ports simultaneously in my setup. The support forums for your distro would be a good place to look for people with similar problems and how they got it fixed.

 

rant: I think this one-click install is the step away from an easy Linux for beginners to a system for ignorant idiots who are too lazy to learn anything about a new OS.
One-click install breaks the killer feature of Linux in general and Debian-based distros in particular: A great package management system.
Sure, a consistent package management requires newbees to deal a bit with the topic, but it's worth it. Debian's package management was one of my most important reasons when switching from Windows to Linux.

Maybe triggered by LMDE there's currently a wave of switching Ubuntu users flooding Debian forums who are asking for help. So far the answer is usually: "Forget sudo, use su!"
I don't even want to imagine how this scenario looks like in 5 years when one-click install is the default among Ubuntu users and all the changers whine about never having heard about proper package management and why this all must be so complicated.

@Mark Shuttleworth:
Please do Debian users a favour and don't ever again give Ubuntu users a reason to try Debian! Thanks!

 

Well I've never had any problems with pulseaudio, but that's because I always remove the damn thing and just use ALSA or OSS4. Both of those work just great.

And yes, Ubuntu was not the only distro that made the mistake of shipping PA too early -- but they were the only non-"cutting edge" distro to do so. OpenSUSE and Fedora are quite up-front about the fact that they're basically large-scale testing grounds for new tech that isn't yet in their stable cousing (SLED and RHEL, respectively). Ubuntu's different: they aim to be a distro for new/average users, which makes shipping alpha-quality software a *lot* less excusable.

 

The 6 month Ubuntu releases are and have always been testing grounds for the LTS releases. The 6 month releases introduce new features and the LTS releases make them stable (as well as they can). Canonical just never said that as clearly as Fedora or Opensuse did.
Unfortunately even the LTS releases are pressed into the fixed 6 month cycle and therefore tend to suffer from the same problem of insufficient testing as the non-LTS releases. So if you want a stable Ubuntu use the LTS half a year after its release. Then upgrade to the next LTS half a year after that has been released.

Unfortunately most Ubuntu users don't understand that model (and Canonical doesn't want them to because their main target group are Windows users who tend to be version junkies).
A matured Ubuntu LTS (with backports if you like) runs nearly as stable as a Debian stable. Unfortunately you'll still have to live with the typical Ubuntu bloat.

 

Doesn't that go without saying? A 'matured' OS has the kinks irnoned out, while the flashy new model creates more bugs and issues -- until they get fixed.

 

No, it doesn't go without saying. An OS doesn't mature on it's own. It needs to be maintained through time. And if new versions are released while an older version is still in it's maturing process the matured version quickly gets off the radar.
Therefore only the people who understand the model and prefer stability over newer version numbers will be able to benefit from the matured version instead of being pulled from one half-baked version to another with the rest of the main stream.

 

I agree that new version numbers should not trump stability. That is another reason PCLinuxOS is number one in my book. They do not rush out to release new version of these and that for the sake of being the first. When Fedora and Kubuntu where out with the flashy, but buggy, initial releases of KDE 4.x, PCLinuxOS remain steadfast with KDE 3.x. Once KDE4 was stabilized PCLOS adopted it.

PCLinuxOS does not compromise stability for having the latest and greatest. However, it will provide the latest and greatest if there is no reason not to. PCLOS stays very current in its application and library versions. Ubuntu and all Debian derivatives that I have seen have a tendency to fall behind, for no good reason. There are few things as frustrating as knowing that a certain feature you need is available, but your distribution is just not interested in deploying it, until their next release.

 

Then I'll give you one:
Debian's focus is on servers where a defined behavior is needed, no matter if the latest features already run stable or not. Therefore Debian has static releases. Ubuntu mainly just copies from Debian and since there is no CUT so far the easiest way to do that is to introduce static releases in Ubuntu too.

I see and appreciate the benefits that PCLOS's gentle RR-model brings, but frankly I'm pretty fed up will all the bragging by it's users who just fail to see that this model isn't applicable in every situation.

btw:
Try Aptosid or Debian Testing/Sid if you don't like Debian stable's good reasons.

 

Well, my intention is not to brag but to inform. As you say, Debian's focus is on servers. They are great for that. But, people here are mostly looking for a desktop distribution. I think it is a shame that PCLinuxOS does not get the credit it deserves as a phenomenal desktop oriented distro.

There are too many loyalists in this world and not enough objectivity.

 

Personaly I think desktop systems for the masses should be as simple as possible. I think Ubuntu and one click installs are great. The terminal should be something that never has to be used unless for advanced tasks.

For debian this is something different, Debian as a whole different aim.

May I ask you (I'm not up to date with this thread): what is driving people from Ubuntu to Debian?

 

I've got to disagree with that assessment. Anyone who is installing last year's Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is missing out on the nifty Ubuntu Software Center. Is is a big deal? Yes, it is a very big deal, especially for inexperienced Linux users. It also helps to have the latest Linux kernel, at least if you're working with brand new hardware, but Canonical really got the jump on the both Apple and Microsoft with the Software Center. Yes, I know there's nothing with old fashioned repositories and the good old "sudo apt-get..." but this one innovation would have saved the reputation of Microsoft if they'd adopted it years ago.

 

There is just not enough content in the Ubuntu Software Center... I had a fairly hard time getting Google Earth and Drop Box working on my Ubuntu laptop. Actually, I only manage to get them working by following instructions I Google'd entering lines I really do not understand in the terminal and keeping my fingers crossed.

That being said, after six months I still find Linux harder to install new software to than either Windows or MacOS. Other than that issue, it is pretty easy to get used to.

 

It is easier than MacOS or Windows.

In OpenSUSE
sudo zypper in whatever_your_want_package
In Debian
sudo apt-get install whatever_your_want_package
In Fedora
sudo yum install whatever_your_want_package

Isn't that the easiest?! The syntax is pretty standard across the board.

 

Yes and adding a few extra official or 3rd party repos is not that big a pain - come one you gotta do something - everything should not be at the click of a button - if so probably Linux is not your kind of stuff.... I hate this spoon feeding and laziness Ubuntu is trying to bring around to the community...

 

I really only use Linux, because it does give life to my old laptop. I do not feel any sense of loyalty to any particular operating system. Imagine 1GB or RAM and 80GB hard drive, on Windows Vista (the bundled OS) or Windows 7? But I belong to the school that the Terminal is something you should not have to use if you are the average user. For different hardware I would pick a different OS.

Ubuntu is a company, so it will want to come up with something which has a larger market share.

 

I actually kinda liked Ubuntu. It's both easy to use, but on the other hand you still can do everything from the terminal. For me it was so. I found a normal audio player (yeah banshee kinda sucks, boy what is it today with trying to make every player look and function like itunes) via Software Center (or what it's called) and then tried to make things work through the terminal with help of google. Although I still didn't get how one complies a program from those tar.gz packages, overall experience with Ubuntu is not bad.
For first time user like myself I would really recommend Ubuntu, just to get a taste. After that, well, world of Linux OS is very big. I myself fancy to try out Fedora next

 

Trying out Fedora now. Ubuntu is definitely much easier to get set up. Gnome 3 is very interesting, so I will keep it for a bit and see how it goes.

 

Don't forget to tryout the awesome Mint 11.

 

I second giving Mint a try. IMO, both Mint and Ubuntu are great distros for beginners, and barring internet bandwidth issues, it doesn't hurt to give both a try. I'd also give Opensuse a whirl, and see what you like from there.

 

I just burned a live dvd of it. I like it but I am not quite sure where to start with it. The layouts are nice and I enjoy making my own keyboard shortcuts but applications are hard to get working.

I tried AssaultCube and it sounds great. The only problem is there is no visual on my screen, other than just the desktop. I'm sure that is just because it is a live dvd.

I would like to know if anyone has a good beginners guide to mint 11?
Also, will I have to download a bunch of drivers for everything or will my drivers from windows cross over?
And I know the terminal is usually meant for more experience people but I would love to know how to use it. What exactly does it do though?

 

It does everything. At least that's the expression I had got when I was fooling around with Ubuntu. Pretty much everything GUI let's you do and even more, you could do it via terminal.

I think all those distros are pretty much thing of taste. I really kinda like Gnome 2. It's easy and intuitive. Unity... well it is fine, but it took some time to get used to it and it feels and looks kinda Mac OS wannabe :/ Gnome 3 dunno, still hadn't chance to try it out.

 

Documentation - Linux Mint

Some drivers are supported in the Linux kernel and others can be downloaded as you install Linux - as long as your PC is plugged into an ethernet conneciton.

But no, you drivers don't "cross over" from Windows.

The terminal is just like the old DOS command prompt, at least in concept if not in specific commands. Think of it as the operating system without the graphical user interface.

Personally, I think that a novice could use Ubuntu 11.04 on a daily basis without ever visiting terminal, since the Ubuntu Software Center is so all-inclusive. And yes, you don't have to leave the GUI to change the desktop from Unity to Gnome 2.32.

The only advantage Mint 11 has is the default Gnome 2.32 desktop and preinstalled codecs, neither of which is a major advantage. The downside is that Mint 11 redirects Google searches for the sake of advertising renenues. It's really, really creepy.

Honestly, if you want want a more "Windows-like" Gnome 2.32 desktop on Ubuntu, all it takes is

System Settings > Login Screen > Unlock > Enter Password > Select: Ubuntu Classic and then restart. It's that simple. If you want shift the close, maximize and minimize buttons from the left to the right, all it takes is one line in the terminal or use the below tutorial:

Move Window Buttons Back to the Right in Ubuntu 10.04 / 10.10 - How-To Geek

Presto! Ubuntu 11.04 looks like Mint 11, but without the creepy Google redirects and the green themes.

If you've already downloaded Mint 11 and really, really like green themes and a redirected Google search page, go for it.

 

My audio player of choice is mplayer from the command line.

mplayer -shuffle ~/Music/*

As for building from tar.gz packages, assuming you're on ubuntu, you need to do this:

(one time) sudo apt-get install build-essentials
tar xvzf somenewpackage-1.5.6.tar.gz
cd somenewpackage-1.5.6 (or whatever directory it created)
./configure
make
sudo make install

That'll build about 99% of all tar.gz packages. If it's a tar.bz2 then change the tar command to tar xvjf somenewpackage-1.5.6.tar.bz2.

Having to use the command line in windows or linux doesn't bother me. having to run that fragging registry editor in windows, tho, that thing bugs the crap outta me. I can't imagine someone really thought replacing .ini files with the registry was an improvement in any way.

 

Agreed - but they shouldn't be simpler as possible to handle the system properly. As long as the masses are still able to at least basically understand how the system works making things simpler (by making things easier to understand, not by hiding them). Most of the computer problems are layer 8 problems.
If someone doesn't want to learn at least to the very basics how a computer is to be maintained then he shouldn't use one. It brings too many security problems (bot farms etc.). Keeping a system up to date is part of this maintenance and in order to do this on a linux system the easiest way is to understand package management.
If you're about to ask that question: Yes, I support the idea of a "computer drivers license" (and I mean computer in general, not Windows).

No. One-click installs keep people from learning how proper package management works and that's a bad thing.
When I was a raw beginner Debian convinced me because it had a clear and strong package management system. Synaptic was fully sufficient to fulfill everything I needed to do. It had a nice GUI and it showed me how package management works. I didn't have to worry for searching the web for updated versions of my software to fix security holes which I was so fed up with under Windows, instead there was a central instance that did that for me. One click install removes exactly this advantage.

In the Crunchbang and wattOS forums people weren't satisfied with Ubuntu's instability and bloat and the general tendency to try something half-baked with every new release. I think I once read something similar in the Mint forums when LMDE was about to be released and it's what I hear from nearly everyone in the german Debianforum who comes from Ubuntu.