What distro do you guys recommend to newbies?

[Tsuroerusu]

Picture this scenario:
A friend of family member calls you and complain about spyware and symptoms of Sony's rootkit shit. This friend of familiy member lives too far away from you in order for you to go over there and install Linux for them, what distro do you recommend that they get a hold of and install?


Sit down and think about it, what is it that makes Windows relativly easy to manage for most people? The first thing that strikes me is the control panel, let's face it, that is something Microsoft got right years ago, and every Windows user is used to that, which is why I recommend SUSE or Mandriva to people who asks me this question, they both offer a good configuration system and comes with pretty much everything you need for everyday use of the computer, and even if you need a few extra things, the chance that it's already included on the CDs is pretty good and it's easy to install that extra stuff.

[Judland]

You had to ask

Kanotix, of course!

[gordonmarkus]

I'd say redhat - it was the first distro that I ever installed, and everything went ok. Disk druid sorts out all the partitions and you can select system configurations during the install such as 'desktop', 'server', 'workstation' etc so that you will get the most relevant packages for that install.

-Gordon.

[jsusanka]

I would recommend ubuntu first and then kanotix.

I have installed both and ubuntu has yet not recognized any piece of hardware that I have thrown at it.

kanotix has not recognized some of the hardware I have thrown at it.

I know you guys don't like gnome but I tend to favor it instead of kde.

To me gnome just gets out of my way and lets me work. kde to me at least just has too many configuration options and some bloat. i do think kanotix and suse have the best kde implementation though.

with that said kde does have some kick ass apps like kdetv and kino and konqueror that I still use everyday. i use konqueror mostly at work because it does a better job of tricking web sites into thinking it is Internet Explorer because apparently my work likes to use FEMA as a role model when they develop web sites . I mean we have web sites that run on solaris and websphere and apache and yet you still need IE to view them. Is that the most stupidest thing you have heard or what?

[Brian]

Call me crazy but I would recommend Fedora. Many common applications that "have a Linux version" seem to develop an rpm for RedHat/Fedora first. Yeah I know lots of people complain about rpms but for a new user I feel Fedora should give some basic comfort. Additionally, they also have an easy to follow GUI updating tool as well as an easy to follow GUI install.

A few years ago I would have recommended Mandrake (now Mandriva) but the last version (10.1) I tried didn't play nice (even though 9.2 did) with my hardware and I have since given up on it and suggesting it as an intro distro.

[snarkout]

I don't. To be completely honest, unless the person is really interested in learning, or I feel like being an on-call help desk 24/7 I don't think linux is ready for the newbie desktop. I *do* think it's ready, just not for everyone. Beyond that, there are just way too many configurations/mutations of linux to make is supportable, even if people want to support it. I spoke with a woman yesterday using suse on a lappy who couldn't dial up -- it didn't go well. I know fsck all about suse, but have been able to help another 12 or 13 year old kid with it several times. First problem: no kppp or gppp or anything like that. Second problem, could not find konsole -- eventually found it, but it took far too long. Third problem -- did not remember the root password, or understand that it was a critical piece of info (While I'm not entirely happy with the idea of sudo, it works a lot better than user/root for a desktop system. period.). Fourth problem -- suse hides half its config options in yast, which is great if you know yast -- if you don't it's like playing hide and seek, and worse for the person aon the other end of the phone line. In the end, it turned out that suse hadn't installed a module for her winmodem.

So, IMNSHO, linux is more than ready for the level of user who can find their way around windows or a mac reasonably well. If the "newbie" you're talking about can't open a dos prompt, or at least find Outlook Express in "All Applications" or "C:\" then forget it. At least macintosh gets users prepared for the idea that they need to enter passwords to fsck their system up. Drivers/modules are a much much harder concept for maclots to understand though.

[mrben]

I don't. To be completely honest, unless the person is really interested in learning, or I feel like being an on-call help desk 24/7 I don't think linux is ready for the newbie desktop.

I disagree - I think Linux is great for a (computer) newbie desktops. Its the people who are 'power users' who are the real difficulty.

[Patrick]

I disagree - I think Linux is great for a (computer) newbie desktops. Its the people who are 'power users' who are the real difficulty.

The power users have to unlearn what they've been taught. Noobies have a fresh clean slate to begin with.

[snarkout]

I say this with the highest respect, but it's painfully obvious neither of you work in the support sector. I'm much much less sour than Linc is in this respect, but ask him if he thinks the folks who hose up their email everyday at work are ready to install and run linux, of any flavor.

I suppose that if we're defining "newbie" in this sense as someone who has never used a computer at all, then yes, I absolutely agree that linux should be as easy for them to learn as Windows Or Mac. If what we are talking about is someone that has never used linux at all, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. To use linux for a "windows innoculated" newbie requires an active interest in how to use their system, or a skilled support group (or person) to help them. Some things "just work" while many others "Just Don't Work." This isn't always the fault of the OS, but it's often more than a total neophyte is going to be able to handle easily.

[Tsuroerusu]

I say this with the highest respect, but it's painfully obvious neither of you work in the support sector. I'm much much less sour than Linc is in this respect, but ask him if he thinks the folks who hose up their email everyday at work are ready to install and run linux, of any flavor.

I suppose that if we're defining "newbie" in this sense as someone who has never used a computer at all, then yes, I absolutely agree that linux should be as easy for them to learn as Windows Or Mac. If what we are talking about is someone that has never used linux at all, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. To use linux for a "windows innoculated" newbie requires an active interest in how to use their system, or a skilled support group (or person) to help them. Some things "just work" while many others "Just Don't Work." This isn't always the fault of the OS, but it's often more than a total neophyte is going to be able to handle easily.

OK, let's turn this around and say that "Windows isn't ready for the newbie's desktop", try to teach the users you're refering to how to protect them selves against spyware, virusses, and to get into their heads that they should NOT open attachments, after that you need to teach them what a firewall does and shit like that. Last time I got a newbie to install SUSE for himself, the only issue he had was how to update the system when the little desktop icon turned red, and I said you just doubleclick on the red thing and then click "Start YOU", select a server to get the updates from, click next and there ya go!

In my mind it's Windows who isn't ready for a newbie's desktop-

[dann]

I think there is a middle ground here. Having worked in support for many years I do agree with Snarkout in that trying to get a newbie to do anything, especially over the phone, is a duanting task. Now this is regardless of the OS running. We dread the days administrators go to converences and have to spend a significant amount of time on the phone trying to help them get connected to the hotel network.

Problems are further exacerbated when you don't have the users OS in front of you. I've sat behind my OS X system at work struggling to give XP support because I was not looking at the XP desktop at the time.

There are some hardware deficits in Linux: Winmodems are a good example. There's a reason why they are called winmodems. Sure, there may be third party modules, but the thing is; they were designed to work with Windows only.

Still, this does not mean we just give up. If that modem is support it should be easier to get configured in Linux.

My question is who set that laptop up for the user and why did they not configure the winmodem to begin with? If she installed the software my hats off to her and she has taken steps to educate herself. - she just have a few more steps to go.

[mrben]

I say this with the highest respect, but it's painfully obvious neither of you work in the support sector. I'm much much less sour than Linc is in this respect, but ask him if he thinks the folks who hose up their email everyday at work are ready to install and run linux, of any flavor.

Actually, I've been working in the support sector for 5 years now, in various roles, within a call centre.

I've seen the centre around me (where people are usually hired for their language skills, and not technical skills, as most of the jobs are non-technical) move from OS/2 to Win95 to Win2k to WinXP. I don't think any of the newbies here (and many of them are complete computer newbies when they arrive in the centre) would have any more difficulties moving to Linux than they did between the other OSes.

[Patrick]

I've seen the centre around me (where people are usually hired for their language skills...

You mean they speak without a thick Scottish accent?!

I've been to Scotland. Some of those accents are pretty brutal. Then again you probably think the same about us

[Tsuroerusu]

I've seen the centre around me (where people are usually hired for their language skills...

You mean they speak without a thick Scottish accent?!

I've been to Scotland. Some of those accents are pretty brutal. Then again you probably think the same about us

You said it Pat, I recently had some english leassons at school where we focused on Scotland and who in the world would guess that "bonnie lass" means pretty girl.

[Patrick]

You said it Pat, I recently had some english leassons at school where we focused on Scotland ...

Most of the English language schools in Europe teach Brittish English (which they should). I remember some of my Spanish relatives speaking English with a Brit accent. On the flip side, one of my mothers friends who she grew up in Spain with lived in Texas for a bunch years. When she visited she had a major Texas drawl. Funny stuff.