Good Distros For Starters,advanced,and experts.

Well after reading a success story and a certain reply I had this idea of a game/question.(move this topic where needed)

I was thinking we all post maybe three distros under each category. (starter,advanced,experts)

Then in the end we can see each others views on what distros are good for people to switch or use if they have never used a computer before.

I will start -

Starter List -

1. Ubuntu
2. PClinuxOS
3. Linux Mint

Advanced List -

1. Debian
2. Ubuntu Minimal Install
3. Fedora

Experts List -

1. Arch
2. Gentoo
3. Slackware

Okay, so I'm still a beginner after 9 years of Linux. :D

Everyone's needs and tastes are different, you can't just trim people into three categories like that...

Okay, so I'm still a beginner after 9 years of Linux. :D

Everyone's needs and tastes are different, you can't just trim people into three categories like that...

The categories of Linux distributions is more like: casual (Ubuntu, Mint, Mandriva), hobbyist/specialist (Zenwalk, Puppy, Debian) and mindboggling insanity (Gentoo, LFS, various source-based distros).

Arch falls somewhere between hobbyist and insanity, but I think I prefer insanity. ;)

That is equally bad. Why do you need to put people into boxes, for Heaven's sake?

_Perfection_ -NetBSD & Gentoo :KS

_Almost Perfection_ -the rest of the *BSDs -Arch

That is equally bad. Why do you need to put people into boxes, for Heaven's sake?

How's that for a blind absolute flame bait category? :D

HymnToLife said: That is equally bad. Why do you need to put people into boxes, for Heaven's sake?

lol... I do not think this was ever meant too? I was just meaning to see everyones views on how hard the distros are to use and who should use them.

I didn't mean for this topic to turn into a flame war :(.

Twitch6000 said: Well after reading a success story and a certain reply I had this idea of a game/question.(move this topic where needed)

I was thinking we all post maybe three distros under each category. (starter,advanced,experts)

Then in the end we can see each others views on what distros are good for people to switch or use if they have never used a computer before.

I will start -

Starter List -

1. Ubuntu
2. PClinuxOS
3. Linux Mint

Advanced List -

1. Debian
2. Ubuntu Minimal Install
3. Fedora

Experts List -

1. Arch
2. Gentoo
3. Slackware

It depends on what disc you use, for debian. If you use cd1 or dvd1 it's pretty easy. Not much harder (if any at all) than ubuntu.

While I see how this could quickly turn into a flame war, or discussion about how in vain attempts to categorize distributions is, I have an idea.

Maybe list three or so in each category you would *suggest* for those at each level. This will enlighten others to your personal preferences, and also present options for those looking to explore other distributions, without necessarily putting the user into a subjective category.

That said, my suggestions: Beginner -

1. Mandriva
2. Pardus
3. Ubuntu

Intermediate -

1. Arch
2. Fedora
3. Absolute

Advanced -

1. MirOS (BSD)
2. DragonFlyBSD
3. LFS

Arch, I would say, is an Intermediate distro, not advanced. Its just as easy to set up as the Ubuntu Alternate CD.

COLiNx86 said: It depends on what disc you use, for debian. If you use cd1 or dvd1 it's pretty easy. Not much harder (if any at all) than ubuntu.

Yes you are probably correct there.

I should have put the disc I used which was the net install.

Maybe this could be stickied (with some editing?)

Well, I think you have this all wrong. I would say that darn near every linux distro would fall somewhere between beginner and intermediate. This would hold true until you get to source based distributions that are not LFS, Gentoo, or Sabayon. Linux distribution that would certainly fall into advanced would be similar to "Doin' things your darn self". Perhaps "Making your own distribution" or any source based distribution that comes lacking a manual, how to, or guide of any sort. If you can follow directions Gentoo and LFS are a breeze. If you can read a text prompt Slackware, Arch, Debian, and so on are very easy as well. Installing command line/server Ubuntu is a matter of know "apt-get install whatever" and many other command line distributions are surprisingly similar to that approach. Differing from this are your micro distributions such as ttylinux, basic linux, zip slack, tiny core, and so on... these could fall somewhere in between intermediate and advanced - maybe a category such as "non-novice".

Poor (or missing) documentation certainly makes things harder, but the larger issue, namely, quality, is more to blame in such cases. I wouldn't compare very many distributions to Arch, Slack or Gentoo, and call them 'hard' simply because the developers code, compile and then package things up without useful documentation. I would call Lunar, for example, very 'hard' because it is such a piece of ****, is so sorely lacking quality and basically comes with a 'take it or leave it' sticker. But to compare it to the above distributions would not really be fair.

It comes down to requisite knowledge & perseverance:

The more knowledge you have on any subject the easier it is to understand & work with, therefore less perseverance is required & visa versa.

Apart from that, many people use whatever satisfies them, there is no need to build LFS or whatever, unless you have a desire or some kind of need to do it.

_Beginner_ Xubuntu Pardus Vector

_Intermediate_ Arch Slackware NetBSD

_Advanced_ CRUX DragonFlyBSD SourceMage/Lunar/etc.

HymnToLife said: That is equally bad. Why do you need to put people into boxes, for Heaven's sake?

It was a j o k e. Did you really think 'mindboggling insanity' would be a valid category? :confused:

mentallaxative said: It was a j o k e. Did you really think 'mindboggling insanity' would be a valid category? :confused:

Of course not. ;) What I meant is that different people have different tastes and needs. For example, someone who has been using Linux for 5+ years could very well use Mandriva because all he needs is something that gets a job done, which Mandriva does just as well as any other distro, and does not have the time or the will to install Gentoo or LFS. Could this person still be considered a beginner? Just because you *could* do something (i.e. have enough knowledge/experience to do it) does not mean you *have* to.

HymnToLife said: Of course not. ;) What I meant is that different people have different tastes and needs. For example, someone who has been using Linux for 5+ years could very well use Mandriva because all he needs is something that gets a job done, which Mandriva does just as well as any other distro, and does not have the time or the will to install Gentoo or LFS. Could this person still be considered a beginner? Just because you *could* do something (i.e. have enough knowledge/experience to do it) does not mean you *have* to.

I knew that. You still sounded irate for something so minor.

Lunar isn't too bad compared to Gentoo. The installation is a breeze and the package manager has tab completion.

HymnToLife said: Of course not. ;) What I meant is that different people have different tastes and needs. For example, someone who has been using Linux for 5+ years could very well use Mandriva because all he needs is something that gets a job done, which Mandriva does just as well as any other distro, and does not have the time or the will to install Gentoo or LFS. Could this person still be considered a beginner? Just because you *could* do something (i.e. have enough knowledge/experience to do it) does not mean you *have* to.

Yes. Even Linus Thorvalds prefers "easy" distros. He *could* run Slackware, Gentoo or whatever he wants, but I think he prefers Fedora with KDE.

I could use a much more "advanced" distro myself, but I prefer them easy since the more work I do on the distro, the less time I have to get work done.

Hallvor said: Yes. Even Linus Thorvalds prefers "easy" distros. He *could* run Slackware, Gentoo or whatever he wants, but I think he prefers Fedora with KDE.

I could use a much more "advanced" distro myself, but I prefer them easy since the more work I do on the distro, the less time I have to get work done.

You could make the argument that distributions like Gentoo and Arch are actually less work in the end because they are rolling releases. Once you get them setup, which is where 95% of the administration time comes in, you only have to type a simple command to keep the system up to date. You don't have to worry about doing distribution upgrades or reinstalling from scratch. Likewise, you don't have to remove useless services that get pre-installed in other distributions.

Also, if problems do arise with new software, you will incur them incrementally rather than all at once. I find it a lot easier to type "pacman -Syu" than to fiddle around in some specialized GUI to figure out how to update my system. It is also a lot easier to edit /etc/rc.conf to add/remove services than to try and figure out "the Mandriva way" or "the PCLinuxOS way."

It depends on how we categorize it. For ease's sake I'll say "easy" means emphasis on GUI's, a LiveCD, out-of-the-box functionality, a whole lot of default softare, and little need for hands-on configuration.

Easy:

• Ubuntu
• MEPIS
• Mint
• Mandriva
• Dream
• Fedora
• SUSE
• Xandros

Medium:

• Zen (I vaguely recall)
• Sabayon
• Arch

Hard:

• Slack
• Gentoo
• LFS (more like holyshit)
• CRUX

I say Arch is "medium" because, honestly, once it's all setup if you're using GNOME or KDEMod the whole thing's pretty easy pie, and the setup is mostly following instructions and copy/pasting commands. Arch is more "intimidating" than "difficult". For the most part, you don't even have to change anything in the Beginners Guide wiki except the one step where you pick a username. If I gave you a system with Arch preinstalled and told you that "pacman -S" replaced "apt-get install" there'd be no learning curve to speak of.

chachawpi said: You could make the argument that distributions like Gentoo and Arch are actually less work in the end because they are rolling releases. Once you get them setup, which is where 95% of the administration time comes in, you only have to type a simple command to keep the system up to date. You don't have to worry about doing distribution upgrades or reinstalling from scratch. Likewise, you don't have to remove useless services that get pre-installed in other distributions.

I prefer rolling releases myself, and that is what I use. I set a system up for a friend of mine in a very short time (a couple of hours to install and make everything the way he wanted it). It has been running for some nine months now and the only system maintainance is done through synaptic (or by typing apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade) every now and then.

I have never even bothered to turn off any system services. It only uses about 80MB of RAM on a clean KDE desktop, so memory consumption is hardly a problem.

SomeGuyDude said:

I say Arch is "medium" because, honestly, once it's all setup if you're using GNOME or KDEMod

or Xfce. ):P :-D

SomeGuyDude said:

the whole thing's pretty easy [as] pie

HymnToLife said: Of course not. ;) What I meant is that different people have different tastes and needs. For example, someone who has been using Linux for 5+ years could very well use Mandriva because all he needs is something that gets a job done, which Mandriva does just as well as any other distro, and does not have the time or the will to install Gentoo or LFS. Could this person still be considered a beginner? Just because you *could* do something (i.e. have enough knowledge/experience to do it) does not mean you *have* to.

It's also true that ease of use is very subjective. I'm giving Pardus a shot right now, and it's driving me absolutely insane because I can't figure out how to get the system working the way I want. These miserable wizards are causing me far more trouble than CRUX did...

I think that something has to be said for to what you are accustomed. For example, I grew up using BSD, because my father was an electrical engineer and wanted me to know "what the real men used" as he put it. So, I learned BSD, Solaris, and AIX which are the systems used at his work. Coming to GNU/Linux, I found Slackware to be easiest for me. My ex-wife's mother worked at AT&T when she was younger, and as she was coming to GNU/Linux she asked for something similar to the UNIX she had used. I showed her Slackware, Arch, and Gentoo. She thought all three were amazing and chose to go with Gentoo. She thought the source based 'emerge' was the coolest thing ever...

I never would have switched to GNU/Linux had BSD had as good hardware support, and as large a community. That said, I think that GNU proper is even worse off. Of all the Unices currently available, GNU/Linux is the only one that seems modern enough and popular enough to stand against OSX and Windows as a real competitor in the business world, desktop market, and in the end on my personal machines.

The different flavors are no more or less hard than one another in all truth. If you want easy to use Slackware, you always have Slax. If you want easy to use Debian you have Ubuntu. If you want easy to use Gentoo you have Sabayon. Any distribution can be made to be nearly exactly the same as another distribution, you simply must be willing to put in the time and effort required. Personally, I love Slackware and GoboLinux. That's about it. Most other distributions just frustrate me to a point that is totally out-rageous.