Linux?

[craigtrap]

Have a look at distrowatch, it has quite alot of news and linux help, but for the most part, it has most (if not all) of the links to the different distros to download.

http://distrowatch.com/

Thanks vinnyT!!!!

[godsdog]

While you're at Distrowatch, check out reviews for PCLinuxOS 2007, it's another popular alternative desktop with good community and support.

[directhex]

And what happens when you change hardware?.. Great install scripts are pointless if they don't help you post install, to that end, I'd recommend OpenSUSE over *Ubuntu any day for someone who is new to Linux.

ubuntu doesn't have any "great install scripts" beyond x-server autodetection. all the rest of the hardware support is via hotplug & udev et al, fed by a large selection of extra out-of-the-box modules & firmwares (e.g. madwifi stuff).

and if you change graphics card, from 7.10 onwards, it'll switch to a failsafe gfx/monitor setup window using vesa at a low res

i've never had a good experience with opensuse - 10.0 managed to eat a co-worker's laptop (creating partitions with overlapping boundaries), 10.1 didn't even have a working updater when it shipped, and whilst for about 2 years my laptop has been fine hooked up to a projector, the same co-worker has never succeeded under suse due to its obsession with placing calculated (and wrong) modelines into xorg.conf rather than allowing the graphics driver to do its job

i'd never recommend opensuse to anyone for any purpose, from bitter experience - and it's certainly no better for hardware detection, when ubuntu will just give you a clicky "hey, nvidia card, want 3d?" window on first boot, autoconfigure your wifi with networkmanager, and more

[aidanjt]

ubuntu doesn't have any "great install scripts" beyond x-server autodetection. all the rest of the hardware support is via hotplug & udev et al, fed by a large selection of extra out-of-the-box modules & firmwares (e.g. madwifi stuff).

and if you change graphics card, from 7.10 onwards, it'll switch to a failsafe gfx/monitor setup window using vesa at a low res

i've never had a good experience with opensuse - 10.0 managed to eat a co-worker's laptop (creating partitions with overlapping boundaries), 10.1 didn't even have a working updater when it shipped, and whilst for about 2 years my laptop has been fine hooked up to a projector, the same co-worker has never succeeded under suse due to its obsession with placing calculated (and wrong) modelines into xorg.conf rather than allowing the graphics driver to do its job

i'd never recommend opensuse to anyone for any purpose, from bitter experience - and it's certainly no better for hardware detection, when ubuntu will just give you a clicky "hey, nvidia card, want 3d?" window on first boot, autoconfigure your wifi with networkmanager, and more

It's worked fine here (I avoided the 9.3-10.2 releases completely, but 10.3 has come a long way since then). SaX2 has it's problems granted, but most of the time it does the right thing. And it wont make noobie mistakes over and over.

[craigtrap]

i think i will go with openSUSE!

[mycarsavw]

While you're at Distrowatch, check out reviews for PCLinuxOS 2007, it's another popular alternative desktop with good community and support.

Just about to post the same distro.

I've used Ubuntu for a year or so now but tried PCLinuxOS on the off chance last week.

Very impressed with it so far.

If you're after something that "looks and works like Windows" which is often the case with Windows to *nix users I recommend PCLinuxOS.

[directhex]

If you're after something that "looks and works like Windows" which is often the case with Windows to *nix users I recommend PCLinuxOS.

linux isn't windows

efforts to pretend otherwise are doomed to be inferior to the "real thing"

[mycarsavw]

linux isn't windows

efforts to pretend otherwise are doomed to be inferior to the "real thing"

I know it isn't Windows but Windows users looking to get into Linux often want to see how it works and what it's all about. To a Windows-only user there's no better way to see it than in a Windows style.

When I started looking at Linux there wasn't anything as exciting and pleasing on the eye as Ubuntu etc and the command line was (and still is) very daunting.

For a LiveCD version (which is what I'd always recommend) the sparkly draw of the GUI always wins with 90% of the people.

I wasn't suggesting in any way that Linux is Windows

[speardane]

Try several

with modern disks 3-500Gb it's easy....

• 1 v.small boot partition (100Mb or less)
• 1 large /home partition + a decent backup scheme!
• 1 swap partition
• several / (ie root) partitions - or create one initially & leave remainder unformatted (I normally make them 10-20GB each depending on what I want to install)

Install whichever into 1st root partition - see what you think
Install another distro into another root partition, use the same /home and /swap partitions.

I quite often use this technique to try out new releases

nb

• backups are a good idea - whatever OS you use
• it helps if you read up how Linux names disks & partitions and write it down when you do the 1st install
  (ie HDA1 = 1st IDE disk, 1st partition; HDA2 = 1st IDE disk, 2nd partition; HDB1 = 2nd IDE disk, 1st partition; HDB2 = 1st IDE disk, 2nd partition; etc SD.. rather than HD.. means SCSI or SATA rather than IDE)
• most modern distro's use a boot manager that will recognise the earlier install and dual boot - as they do with windows

[ikonia]

the fact that grub will install each distros grub boot loader with varying compatability options, uuid disk ID for an easy example ,and menu.lst rather then append to the own makes this a pointless task for new users. Try one - try another, try another, don't try multie boot.

[peterb]

When I started looking at Linux there wasn't anything as exciting and pleasing on the eye as Ubuntu etc and the command line was (and still is) very daunting.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement! All the major distros ship with Gnome and KDE and while the as installed version shipped with Ubuntu may be particularly glitzy (I don't know - I haven't looked) Gnome is very configureable - as is KDE. The CLI may appear daunting, but with a general Linux book (such Linux in a Nutshell) all are explained, and there is a wealth of information in the Man pages that are included with the major distros. (eg man ls will give you all the information about the ls command)

For a LiveCD version (which is what I'd always recommend) the sparkly draw of the GUI always wins with 90% of the people.

Again, most of the major Live CDs run a GUI as standard.

[UltraMagnus]

Ubuntu. it tends to just work, and is easier to install than windows. and if it doesn't there is a massive userbase so finding a guide for your specific hardware shouldn't be hard

i prefer Gnome really, what you have to realise is that, as much as you may be used to windoze interface, it is an abomination that should not be copied under any circumstances

[mycarsavw]

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement! All the major distros ship with Gnome and KDE and while the as installed version shipped with Ubuntu may be particularly glitzy (I don't know - I haven't looked) Gnome is very configureable - as is KDE. The CLI may appear daunting, but with a general Linux book (such Linux in a Nutshell) all are explained, and there is a wealth of information in the Man pages that are included with the major distros. (eg man ls will give you all the information about the ls command)

Gah!

My first choice was debian. I got an i386 distro, popped it in and got to a command line, nothing more. Having used DOS for years I began bashing away using common (to DOS) commands and getting nowhere. I scoured the 'net for info, found what I wanted and started again. To a seasoned Windows user, it was daunting and I didn't have any books to hand

My nth choice was Ubuntu. Popped in the LiveCD and went straight to a glitzy desktop and used the mouse to work things out.

From that, perhaps naively, I decided Ubuntu was for me. It was what I recognised. It worked almost how Windows worked. At the time I wasn't aware of KDE, Gnome and so on, I just knew that Ubuntu gave me what I wanted.

For someone who doesn't want to tool about and just wants to see what Linux can do, a nice GUI works. I realise this isn't true for everyone, but of the 20+ people I've discussed Linux with, most of them are too scared to move from Windows because Linux "appears to be daunting".

Again, most of the major Live CDs run a GUI as standard.

They do, so a LiveCD or seven really is the best way to get going.

[peterb]

True - it can be a lonely road when you do load a distro and the X server fails to start and you are presented with the bare login prompt! Makes for a VERY steep learning curve! However most of the major distros have excellent hardware support - at least for basic graphics capability, and I'm surprised you had a problem with Debian. But as you say, once you get the hang of it, Linux is a great experience!

[directhex]

True - it can be a lonely road when you do load a distro and the X server fails to start and you are presented with the bare login prompt! Makes for a VERY steep learning curve! However most of the major distros have excellent hardware support - at least for basic graphics capability, and I'm surprised you had a problem with Debian. But as you say, once you get the hang of it, Linux is a great experience!

well debian, as standard, doesn't actually give you a gui...

...so its not a problem not to get one!

[UltraMagnus]

I have always considered debian to be more a base to make an operating system on than a fully blown proper operating system. and i just wish they would stop naming everything after toy story characters....