What distro do you guys recommend to newbies?

[Tsuroerusu]

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 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.

Hehe, sounds like you can tell some good stories

Pretty much all schools in Denmark try to teach brittish english, but they do include the american, australian and scottish accents.

My english skills is actually a lot closer to the american style than to the brittish, which is properly caused by my huge interest in computers, and Linux definitely pushed that one over the border.

[treehead]

;the answer to this question has to be two-fold:

1. does the user need to administer the computer on their own?
2. what hardware are you installing it on?

;if the user is going to administrate the box themself, their going to have to be willing to learn. this is where i side with snark, but i'll get to that.

;if they're justing using the system for web browsing, e-mail, and word-processing, then any distribution will do... just choose one that works best with their hardware "out of the box."

... 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....

;here's my flamebait: linux is not ready for the desktop. why? because it is too difficult to get hardware working. why? because the community does not have the clout to muscle hardware manufacturers into releasing specifications for their devices. until this happens, linux marketshare will only increase by bits-and-pieces, not leaps-and-bounds.

;so the issue is not the number of distributions. it is not the lack of ease of use. it is not even that linux is not pre-installed on boxes at the store (although, this issue ties in with hardware support). the issue is simply this. linux is not ready for the desktop because the desktops aren't ready for linux. it has nothing to do with end-users.

...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....

;i would agree with this. i think that gnome is "boring" in the way that mac os 7/8/9's gui was boring: in a way that lets you get things done. i actually think it's a good looking interface in its own right. gui is not about "wowing" anyone... it's about let you interface graphically. but i digress...

;treehead

[Gomer_X]

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.

I'd agree with this. I used to recommend Mandrake as a pretty good distro for people who only know Windows, but I'm not that impressed with them anymore.

Fedora is really as good as anyone else for a simple graphical install. It detects hardware just fine. It has decent graphical administration tools, and has large package repositories.

My wife knows little about computers and hates them on general principle, but she's been using Fedora on her system since I built it. I've given her very little instruction beyond pointing out what the icons on the desktop were for.

For someone who considers themselves a "Windows Power User," I'd probably steer them towards a KDE based distro, since it has more knobs to play with.

[no1important]

I would say Kanotix or Ubuntu would be two of the best for newbies. I run Kanotix 99% of the time but I also have Ubuntu installed and when I remember I have it, I do use it. They're both are easy to use.

I have never tried any other distro so I can not comment on them.

[snarkout]

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.

Listen to what you're saying though. I prefaced my first comment with the fact that it's certainly ready to use is a person has readily available support -- if that wasn't clear, sorry. You, in this case, are this support. There is a huge difference between a user in a tech staffed office situation and a lone user with a laptop with no knowledge.

Another major issue is *getting* support for linux. I mean I simply could not help the lady I mentioned, and I'm actually allowed to try. I do help several people with linux though. Most ISPs will laugh out loud if you call and ask for support, let alone if you ask to speak to a person in the NOC about your flippin linux box. I don't blame linux, but the hardware manufacturers and the fact that linux is still so unpopular as a desktop. Once this changes, if it changes, things will be different. But I have a very hard time imagining a day when all flavors of linux are supported anywhere.

[Tsuroerusu]

There is a huge difference between a user in a tech staffed office situation and a lone user with a laptop with no knowledge.

Well, then give a Windows laptop to that lone user with now knowledge and presume he can manage to keep himself free of spyware and viruses, I just don't believe that is possible. I feel that Windows harder to use than Linux for inexperienced people because you have to become a security expert to use it safely.

I don't blame linux, but the hardware manufacturers and the fact that linux is still so unpopular as a desktop. Once this changes, if it changes, things will be different.

Snarkout, let me ask you, what do you think that we in the free software, and open source, community have to do to make Linux more popular as a desktop operating system? Because if I look at it from your point of view I see a big paradox: Linux is ready for people with access to support, but support is not available from typical end-user hotlines, and hardware manufacturers won't offer support for Linux because it doesn't have a big share of the market.

But I have a very hard time imagining a day when all flavors of linux are supported anywhere.

Do you really belive that "all flavors" of Linux ever would be supported? If a company selling support was to support Linux I bet ya they would go to distro watch and pick the distros that are most popular and that they know end-users would use, such as Ubuntu, Mandriva, SUSE, Mepis, Fedora and Linspire. And no other distributions.

[snarkout]

Well, then give a Windows laptop to that lone user with now knowledge and presume he can manage to keep himself free of spyware and viruses, I just don't believe that is possible. I feel that Windows harder to use than Linux for inexperienced people because you have to become a security expert to use it safely.

Well, I already said that I think if you started anyone out as a first time user they'd be equally as good. I'd like to point out though that most people are terrified of the command line, and linux still requires you to know it occasionally.

Snarkout, let me ask you, what do you think that we in the free software, and open source, community have to do to make Linux more popular as a desktop operating system? Because if I look at it from your point of view I see a big paradox: Linux is ready for people with access to support, but support is not available from typical end-user hotlines, and hardware manufacturers won't offer support for Linux because it doesn't have a big share of the market.

Kick Microsoft square in the ass. Microsoft is cerainly kicking linux in the ass right now on the Desktop. I think it has less to do with the quality of the OS and more to do with vendor lock-in, but still, M$ simply kicks every other OS's ass at being sold. Obviously I run linux, not Windows, so I agree linux is better.

Do you really belive that "all flavors" of Linux ever would be supported? If a company selling support was to support Linux I bet ya they would go to distro watch and pick the distros that are most popular and that they know end-users would use, such as Ubuntu, Mandriva, SUSE, Mepis, Fedora and Linspire. And no other distributions.

It would help a lot if more distros tried to stardardize their basic setups. As it is, it's a nightmare trying to help a non-linux savy user on a linux desktop you're unfamiliar with.

[Tsuroerusu]

Well, I already said that I think if you started anyone out as a first time user they'd be equally as good. I'd like to point out though that most people are terrified of the command line, and linux still requires you to know it occasionally.

When do you need to use the commandline? I made my mum install SUSE Linux 10 on her PC herself, and she NOT an experienced computer user, she knows how to surf the web, use a word processor and basic menu navigation and that's it. She managed to install the thing all by herself without any help from me, and no commandline use AT ALL. So tell me where do you need the commandline for people who just use their PC for day-to-day web surfing, email and word processing?

Kick Microsoft square in the ass. Microsoft is cerainly kicking linux in the ass right now on the Desktop. I think it has less to do with the quality of the OS and more to do with vendor lock-in, but still, M$ simply kicks every other OS's ass at being sold. Obviously I run linux, not Windows, so I agree linux is better.

That's not an intelligent answer, I'll ask you again:
What do you think that we in the free software, and open source, community have to do to make Linux more popular as a desktop operating system?
If you don't have a clue then just say you don't instead of that brainless cursing of Microsoft.

It would help a lot if more distros tried to stardardize their basic setups. As it is, it's a nightmare trying to help a non-linux savy user on a linux desktop you're unfamiliar with.

Which is which I don't recommend distros like Ubuntu or Kanotix for non-experienced users because they don't have a central control center/panel for managing settings of stuff that can be a nightmare to set up like the monitor, which you need to know the Horizontal and Vertical Sync values of to get working properly. SUSE's Sax2 utility, has a big database of monitors and their proper sync values and other settings, and then you just choose the monitor you have then you're done. Also if you wanna install the NVIDIA graphics driver, you just check a box and click Accept and you're done, I know Ubuntu can do this too, but I just don't trust a distro that's only 1½ years old compared to a distro that's been in development since 1994.

[snarkout]

That's not an intelligent answer, I'll ask you again:
What do you think that we in the free software, and open source, community have to do to make Linux more popular as a desktop operating system?
If you don't have a clue then just say you don't instead of that brainless cursing of Microsoft.

What brainless cursing of microsoft? I said microsoft is kicking our ass at this point, and it is. How do we change that? I don't have a clue. Obviously if it were easy to do, Apple would have done it a long time ago. You can point to software, but apple has a lot of the software that is supposedly holding people back from migrating. You can point to the fact that linux isn't a readily available option at Best Buy (or wherever), but I highly doubt many people are going to buy up those Linspire boxes at Frys if they're not currently running linux. Of the 3 posts I've seen recently talking about those boxes, all have been questions about getting Windows installed on them. You can point to the fact that multimedia in linux is very poor at this point, and much of what can be done is not done legally (w32codecs, libdvdcss, etc), but I don't know how big a deal that really is, though I certainly see lots of posts on various boards in all caps demanding mp3 support, stat.

The bottom line is that for wider adoption of linux to take place people will have to stop using windows. That's unlikely to happen unless there's a really good reason for them to. Most people don't see spyware or viruses as something that is worth leaving behind a platform they've grown up using, and that they own many apps for that cost them hundreds of dollars. Again, obviously, I'm on your side of this debate, but I am not a member of the camp that believes that linux will "take over the world" any time soon.

[Judland]

I'll also throw this in.... the benefits of a live CD distro, like Ubuntu / Kanotix / Knoppix / PCLlinuxOS / whatever, is that a user can get a feel for Linux and how it performs without having to risk their existing OS.

I wouldn't recommend any distro that you must install to someone who's just asking me, casually, what Linux is like to work with or what it looks like, etc. I think it's silly to expect them to scrub their existing OS just to find out Linux isn't for them.

When trying to entice interested people to give Linux a try, the easier the better. And people who I've seriously discussed Linux with think that running an entire system from a CD is an impressive thing. "Hey, if you don't like it, just simply reboot!" That's a no-risk selling feature that's helping desktop Linux in a big way.

[Tsuroerusu]

I'll also throw this in.... the benefits of a live CD distro, like Ubuntu / Kanotix / Knoppix / PCLlinuxOS / whatever, is that a user can get a feel for Linux and how it performs without having to risk their existing OS.

I wouldn't recommend any distro that you must install to someone who's just asking me, casually, what Linux is like to work with or what it looks like, etc. I think it's silly to expect them to scrub their existing OS just to find out Linux isn't for them.

When trying to entice interested people to give Linux a try, the easier the better. And people who I've seriously discussed Linux with think that running an entire system from a CD is an impressive thing. "Hey, if you don't like it, just simply reboot!" That's a no-risk selling feature that's helping desktop Linux in a big way.

Actually I do that too, if people ask me if there are something else in the world than Windows, you wouldn't think there was right? , I just tell them to get KNOPPIX and try Linux out, and if they like it I tell them to get SUSE.

[Judland]

Excellent!

[Tsuroerusu]

Yeah, I like the package selection of SUSE which gives you everything nice and intergrated, it even gives Firefox a KDE like theme out of the box. Plus it's very easy to add MPlayer, libdvdcss and w32codecs, if people call you because stuff like H.264 won't play you just tell them, to go to YaST --> Installation source, add in an extra YaST source, you read the URL up for them over the phone, and then go to software management and search for mplayer and w32codecs check the boxes and click Apply and they're done, I like that I can guide people through a friendly GUI.

[Judland]

Yeah, and with Arch all I have to do now is open up a terminal window, SU to root and type pacman -Syu mplayer codecs

Who ever said MS-Windows is easier to install software on was clearly out of their minds.

[Tsuroerusu]

Yeah, and with Arch all I have to do now is open up a terminal window, SU to root and type pacman -Syu mplayer codecs

Who ever said MS-Windows is easier to install software on was clearly out of their minds.

I FULLY agree with that, I don't see why anyone is still complaining about installing software on Linux, that issue was eliminated maybe two and a half years ago, yes you can still run into dependency issues, but look that mostly heppens because you start to tinker around and tweak stuff,and want newer stuff, for my mum, Debian stable would do her fine but for me I want to be a little more bleeding edge which is why I run SUSE, they are good about releasing packages for the newer versions KDE and GNOME, and doesn't make it a hastle to install them.

Also, I generally like the way UNIX places software on your system, binaries go to /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin and libaries go to /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib, much much better organized than crabby Windows.

Anyway, Judland how do the Arch guys get away with distributing binaries of MPlayer and the codecs? Are they hosted in europe?