Ok, no one responded to my first post, so i'll write this again. What is the best distribution of linux for a newbie who just wants home (ie, not server or business) use? I'm thinking either mandrake or suse.

I think Suse is the one that has a massive config file (like a windows registry).

Mandrake is fairly typical Linux.

In the end, go with whichever one you can get to install. Some configs just don't go through the install very easily.

And make SURE you do an md5 sum on the .iso's, if you download them. A bad iso will cause you pain and grief which can be easily avoided.

C@lling it like I c it...

my personal choice is SuSE.
it can be easy for begginners like yourself, yet very configurable, flexible, and powerful for the more experienced.

if you gopher SuSE, just buy the personal edition instead of the professional...you don't need to spend extra money on things you won't use (since you're not creating a server or business etc).

Disregard my previous post.

I was new to linux last year and I went to uni, they use windows 2k and red hat linux.

I am not sure why red hat is so popular because it is not very friendly, also I have found it slow to use. I mean red hat makes using a floppy disk painful. Mount use, unmount etc.

I have set up several linux installations for friends(all red hat). So are you guys saying that SuSe is easier to use than red hat. The only reason I use windows still is because I find linux harder and slower to use.

(Plz dont hurt me :-P).

P.s. Why is red hat so popular?

i think because redhat is one of the most developed linuxes distros out there. they also put in a lot of effort into redhat. its also one of the linuxes that is most worked on.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong...

Dual booting is a very good idea. WinNT for gamez, Linux for everything else. Sure, if you're downloading mp3's you have to stop and reboot in order to play max payne, but since the RIAA is scouring the web, maybe it's a good thing.


C@lling it like I c it...

hey if i wanna dual boot linux and win and i have 25gb hdd, how should i set it up? 1 partition for win and programs and 1 partition for linux and programs? or what?

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong...

>> I am not sure why red hat is so popular because it is not very friendly, also I have found it slow to use. I mean red hat makes using a floppy disk painful. Mount use, unmount etc.

It's the same with all *nix OSs.

>> So are you guys saying that SuSe is easier to use than red hat.

RedHat might be easier to use for complete beginneres...but since you've used linux for a year, give SuSE a whirl - you might like it. But both are easy to install, setup, and use. SuSE just doesn't "hold your hand" every single moment, like RedHat.

>>The only reason I use windows still is because I find linux harder and slower to use.

Harder, well the commands does getting use to. Installing and configuring programs isn't as easy as windows, unless you download the *.rpm files instead of the source code. But it's getting easier since most, if not all, distrobutions have their own RPM installer, which makes life easier for you guys. The same goes with configuring networks, firewalls, etc...RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE and some others have some really nice and easy-to-use GUIs that will help you through it.
Slower?? Do you mean when you open up a browser or file or something it takes a while to load?? Well, don't blame Linux, blame whatever desktop environment you're using (im suspecting KDE or Gnome). It does take a while for programs, browsers, etc. in those desktop environments, but once it's up and running, it is FAST!!! In my experience, an equivilant of a Windows program runs faster in Linux (even though it may not load as fast), but like I said, once its up and running, it's FAST!

>>P.s. Why is red hat so popular?

Just because they've been around for such a long time I guess. If anyone hears the word "linux" they would probably think Redhat...if you mention "SuSE", "Gentoo", or "Slackware", to the general public wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about.

Disregard my previous post.



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sTiCk_E_mOuSe on 08/30/02 11:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

actually, isnt slackware the came b4 redhat? i believe redhat is more "popular" because it was the one that more effort went into... its also the company who made linux "popular" for more common user...

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong...

yes, slackware was one of the very first linux-distros....but it was a pain to install and use in it's early days, so only but the hardcore hackers used it.

even up to know, its fairly safe to say that Debian and Slackware are umongst the most "popular" for "gurus" but not the genral public who just migrated from a windows world.

>> i believe redhat is more "popular" because it was the one that more effort went into...

effort??? probably the only real effort they put more than the guys over at slackware was making intallation and setup a breeze...don't get it wrong, slackware has ALOT of effort put intuit, but it just isn't for newbies, it is made for the more experienced. that, i guess, also contribuites to redhat being more "popular".

Disregard my previous post.

Thx I recently d/l the suse trial bootable cd and I personally prefer it to red hat. Just my preference.

sounds good.

Disregard my previous post.

At work I primarily(sp?) use redhat, debian, and freebsd. The majority of our servers use redhat. I'm not sure why everyone says redhat "holds your hand" or "is so bloated". A typical redhat install for me is 446MB for a full functioning server. No I don't install all those lame scripts that come with redhat(just about all distros have them) to configure the system, I have always done it by hand. The mail server farm uses debian, which can be a pain to install. Dselect needs a major overhaul. I don't find debian any harder to configure then redhat. Once you learn to do it by hand on one distro, its the same for any other. Though config file location varies from distro to distro. I learned linux on slack 3.0. Was a little frustrating at first, because if anyone on here has used slack 3, they know it was far from user friendly. I think its a good idea to learn on a distro that doesn't do everything for you like mandrake or others. You end up relying on a gui to much to do everything for you. Just like windows.

Jesus!

Mandrake doesn't do everything for you?!?!?!

I've used emacs a few times on the fstab file and once on whatever that liloconf one is. But I've not been out to the shell prompt very much at all other than that. I was doing a level3 boot for a while, but I had a little trouble figuring out how to let my other user (non-super) access gdm, so I turned it to level5. But then, after a little scouring, I figured out there's a userdrake and I can flip on groups with that.

And YEAH! The "man" command roxxors my boxxors. It's not like msdos, where there's 3 or 4 undocumented switches on each command. "Man" kicks @$$ on Linux!

Got my USB cd writer to work (dunno if it writes, but it reads; which is what is the most important function for me). That's about as intense as it got. My sound card I had to configure, but it was through a graphical/ascii menu.

I installed Wine, 'cause I'm looking to hammer on Fallout 1, but I can't figure out how to access the wine program. Hell, I looked for an executable everywhere. I even have the game setup already on my fat32 partition specifically for common gamez between xp and Linux.

C@lling it like I c it...