[Wylug-help] Which Version of Linux?

[Smylers]

david powell writes:

> [Dave Fisher writes]:
> 
> > Many people experiment with several distros before finally settling
> > on the one that suits their particular needs, but I would endorse
> > Smylers's view that beginners should choose the one that
> > (level-headed and helpful) mates use.
> 
> tend to agree with this , be shure to try out the diferent window
> managers kde and gnome ,

I wouldn't stress that as important.  For many purposes either KDE or
Gnome will do.  Of course, feel free to try them both out if it's
something that interests you.  But there are many other things that
somebody new to Linux might want to do, and if fiddling with your window
environment doesn't strike you as interesting then just stick with
whatever you've got.

Almost every part of a Linux system can be replaced with rival software.
You'd never get anywhere if you didn't use a text editor (or boot
manager or web-browser or word processor or command-line shell or
'Tetris-alike or ...) until you'd evaluated all the possibilities.

Dave observed that most people end up using a few different
distributions in their first few years of Linux; I don't think you can
extrapolate from that a recommendation that trying out different window
environments should be a priority for a beginner.

> > If you are on your own, I'd recommend Ubuntu (or Kubuntu, the KDE
> > desktop version).
> 
> one of the points i recommend suse for is the auto configuration on
> installation it seems to find and configure everything ok first time
> network , internet , printer , sound , video , mouse etc , 

Aren't all the distros pretty good at this now?  I installed Ubuntu 5.10
a couple of weeks ago; it didn't ask any questions about the hardware
and got it all correct.  I've heard others say similar things about
Fedora, so I don't think Suse is particularly special in this respect.

However, if whatever distro you first pick does for some reason trip
over your hardware, it's probably easier to arbitrarily pick a different
distro and try that than to debug the problem; it might not help, but
it's worth a shot.

> realy and i know you will find this in most places asking what is the
> best distro usualy results in distro war where each prefers one over
> the other 

Indeed.  Also, very few people giving you advice will have up-to-date
experience of more than a couple of distros; most can only describe what
the distro they are using is like, but aren't in a position to know how
that compares to others.

> ...any of the main distros should do , thay all have pros and cons

As such, be particularly aware of anybody who seems to be fanatically
promoting one particular distribution: they are obviously deluded.

> i recomend buying one in the first instance

I wouldn't: there isn't really any need.

> for one main reason it should have a printed manual that will help you
> install it and set it up ,

If the installer is any good it shouldn't require much text to explain
it (and if it isn't any good, try a different distro), and printing out
a few pages isn't hard.  Also, there tends to be a delay with producing
boxed sets over just releasing files for download.

Generally it isn't necessary to have the very latest release, but
hardware detection is an area that has shown recent improvements (and
continues to require work as more hardware gets developed) -- and of
course having your hardware detected correctly greatly reduces the
amount of manual you need to read to get Linux working.

> and the cost of a linux distro in a box with manuals is about the same
> as a good book on linux

I'd hope that a good book on Linux would also cover lots of things that
a distro's manuals don't, such as lots of command-line programs.  But
now I think about it, I don't actually know of a good book on Linux.

Smylers
-- 
May God bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a
difference in this world, so that we can do what others claim cannot be done.