Convince me I should use Ubuntu / other Linux flavor

I'm interested in switching to Linux/BSD of some kind, but no one distro jumps out at me. A quick biography for context:

I am a high school student who's been using Windows since early childhood, and currently runs XP on desktop and OS X on Macbook. I am a relatively advanced Windows power user who probably plays with system settings and the registry too much, but is also well-informed on system security. I use Firefox and OpenOffice. I'm a little obsessive-compulsive when it comes to organizing my files, deleting my family's unused desktop icons, disabling useless processes, and that sort of thing. I am teaching myself Java but am still a beginner, and I have dabbled with the command-line but am not experienced with it.

I have tried Ubuntu on LiveCD and was not immediately impressed. The focus for both Ubuntu, its derivatives, and GNOME seems to be *usability*. However, almost on principle, I would rather have a system where the focus is *functionality*. Compatibility is also nice as long as we're using -lity nouns. I am not afraid of the command-line when it is more effective for a particular task. Though I appreciate open source projects, I have no fundamental commitment to them, and will gladly use proprietary freeware if I find it more useful. No bonus points from me if the system is a Windows clone; in fact, I'll be suspicious whether the interface was chosen for its inherent merits. I intend to dual-boot with XP.

I would appreciate being able to protect the operating system as its own partition, and load the entire thing to RAM on startup. That style of computing appeals to me. I like being given choices rather than cookie-cutter solutions.

Probably the one deciding factor for me, though, is this: I strongly dislike the Windows philosophy of *hide information from the user to avoid confusing them*.

Given this profile, what OS/distro/DE configurations would you suggest for me to try?

I realize I'm asking this at a site devoted to one particular distro, but I have heard that the Ubuntu Forums are unparalleled in the field for their helpfulness.

[img]http://www.fringebloggers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/jedi.jpg[/img] "*You want to use Ubuntu Linux.* Oh, and *these are not the 'droids you're looking for.*"

Boy, I'm turning into a broken record...

Arch. It does require some command-line work, mainly with the installation and whenever a big update comes that requires some tweaking, but it's not going to be eating up your time where every day you're back in the terminal making this or that work.

You build it yourself, pick the pieces you want so that's all that gets installed, and it's intended to be up to date, fast, and generally lightweight. Read more at http://archlinux.org/

Around here, just based on the postings, it sometimes feels like the distro usage is 75% Ubuntu, 15% Arch, and 10% other. :lolflag:

Nicholas Escalona said: I realize I'm asking this at a site devoted to one particular distro, but I have heard that the Ubuntu Forums are unparalleled in the field for their helpfulness.

If you present the same level of courteous and informative dialog, I suspect you would encounter little difficulty on any distro's forums.

SomeGuyDude said: Boy, I'm turning into a broken record...

Arch. It does require some command-line work, mainly with the installation and whenever a big update comes that requires some tweaking, but it's not going to be eating up your time where every day you're back in the terminal making this or that work.

You build it yourself, pick the pieces you want so that's all that gets installed, and it's intended to be up to date, fast, and generally lightweight. Read more at http://archlinux.org/

Around here, just based on the postings, it sometimes feels like the distro usage is 75% Ubuntu, 15% Arch, and 10% other. :lolflag:

Thanks for the suggestion, I hadn't heard of that one before. Do you have any comments on the Arch user community, or on what desktop environment you suggest?

Does the philosophy of Keep It Simple and being lightweight ever extend to hiding information from the user?

If you have to be convinced I wouldn't even bother.

Boy, I'm turning into a broken record...

Arch. It does require some command-line work, mainly with the installation and whenever a big update comes that requires some tweaking, but it's not going to be eating up your time where every day you're back in the terminal making this or that work.

You build it yourself, pick the pieces you want so that's all that gets installed, and it's intended to be up to date, fast, and generally lightweight. Read more at http://archlinux.org/

Around here, just based on the postings, it sometimes feels like the distro usage is 75% Ubuntu, 15% Arch, and 10% other.

I think arch is too difficult for someone with no significant previous linux experience. Being a windows power user means pretty much nothing because windows knowledge doesn't really transfer over.

Anyway since you don't like gnome based distro have you taken a look at any kde based ones, fluxbox, or E17?

http://www.kubuntu.com/ http://www.pclinuxos.com/ http://mandriva.com/ http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php

Ive found that the info is all there if you know where to look. Some of it you can find with a command in the terminal, and what I really love is the ability to move all of your files and make them accesible to you wherever you want.

There are all kinds of OS'es and distributions out there. Feel free to just use one that suits you. You probably might not find it right away, but you'll find something that you feel the most comfortable with, and that's that.

For me, I'm an Ubuntu/Linux/UNIX/Unix-like man myself. The more unusual and underrated it is, the more I like it.

Nicholas Escalona said: Thanks for the suggestion, I hadn't heard of that one before. Do you have any comments on the Arch user community, or on what desktop environment you suggest?

Does the philosophy of Keep It Simple and being lightweight ever extend to hiding information from the user?

Arch is a challenge. If you don't have an extra computer handy, make sure you print out their wiki before you do the install. The entire beginners guide of it.

The philosophy behind Arch is that once you install it you get a package manager, some coreutils, and a shell. You install everything else yourself (the beginner's guide explains how to do this). This means you have complete control over your system. There won't be anything to hide at all. You're going to have to be _very_ comfortable with the command line though. Arch, by default, has no GUI. You install that yourself.

SomeGuyDude said: Boy, I'm turning into a broken record...

Arch. It does require some command-line work, mainly with the installation and whenever a big update comes that requires some tweaking, but it's not going to be eating up your time where every day you're back in the terminal making this or that work.

You build it yourself, pick the pieces you want so that's all that gets installed, and it's intended to be up to date, fast, and generally lightweight. Read more at http://archlinux.org/

Around here, just based on the postings, it sometimes feels like the distro usage is 75% Ubuntu, 15% Arch, and 10% other. :lolflag:

Having read the relevant portions of the Arch wiki, one thing I will give them is they are very honest and up-front about how they are different from quite a long list of other distros out there. I appreciate their candor and sincerity, and respect their unwillingness to waste my time.

Props to Arch for that, definitely.

(That being said, they also completely talked me out of switching, since my needs, goals, ambitions and user experience level will be better suited with Ubuntu.)

Nicholas Escalona said: ... and I have dabbled with the command-line but am not experienced with it.

I would appreciate being able to protect the operating system as its own partition, and load the entire thing to RAM on startup.

Consider learning about Linux with something pre-configured (like Ubuntu).

It is easier to start with Gnome and add a different DE to tinker with, giving you the backup of something doused in usability when things don't work as you expect.

As for loading into RAM, there are a few specific distros designed to run from RAM: Puppy, DamnSmallLinux, Slitaz. Look them up and try them out.

Ubuntu IS an excellent beginner distro in that its popularity ensures you have plenty of help when you run into a beginner issue.

My experience is that forums/irc associated with more obscure distros tend to be a bit less tolerant of "stupid noobs" than Ubuntu. I have, in fact, been told to "do my own homework" in one of these forums.

If you want a bit more control, I actually like Debian. I use it on my home server. Since you are in learn mode, yes, Debian would be a very good distro for someone with your skills and inclinations. You'll also get some solid insights into FOSS philosphy with Debian. That can be a little muddled in Ubuntu sometimes.

Debian also has LOTS of helps on the web.

To add: Aptitude in Debian will allow you to install desktop environments AFTER the fact quite easily, so you can install a straight up command line system first, then move through a couple of the aptitude "tasks" to install different DEs if you want. Since I wanted a low resource home server that was administered through SSH and webmin, I didn't install the DE at all and have gotten pretty good working with the CLI. Hint: "screen" is a wonderful tool.

Lastly, the availability of pre-compiled deb packages from major vendors can be very helpful. Two good examples: Google Picasa and Nomachine NX.

Nicholas Escalona said: Thanks for the suggestion, I hadn't heard of that one before. Do you have any comments on the Arch user community, or on what desktop environment you suggest?

Arch Linux with the Openbox window manager :) (note: it's a window manager, not a desktop environment)

Does the philosophy of Keep It Simple and being lightweight ever extend to hiding information from the user? A quote from the [[COLOR="Blue"]Arch Overlord[/COLOR]]("http://phraktured.net/arch-way.html") should answer that question: [INDENT][I]"If you try to hide the complexity of the system, you'll end up with a more complex system. Layers of abstraction that serve to hide internals are never a good thing. Instead, the internals should be designed in a way such that they NEED no hiding." [/I][/INDENT] Bob

P.S. It isn't necessary to print out the [[COLOR="Blue"]wiki beginner's guide[/COLOR]]("http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide") as it's on the install CD. Just switch to another console and read away.

Furthermore to the Ubuntu argument is the fact that KDE has more GUI options, while GNOME favours minimalist usability.

When I first tried KDE, I was overwhelmed by how much "stuff" I could tweak, and it turned me off instantly. GNOME, I fell in love with instantly. YMMV.

Plus, if you can't find out how to change a setting in GNOME, search for a cmd-line equiv on google.

I've been using one form of Linux or another since RedHat 5.2. When I started my job in the early 90s, I was first exposed to OS/2. This was a very solid platform for me and required by my job. Then I decided to look at Windows when 95 came out and used that OS until XP was at it's height. I always hated blue screens, virii and other maladies that plagued Windows. Then I decided to focus on Linux in my job and was very pleased with my level of control and capabilities. Until Red Hat 7.3, there was not a good GUI environment that supported a laptop environment, but I tell you honestly that today I wouldn't use anything else.

I've tried Red Hat, Fedora Core, Suse and Ubuntu. I've tried all flavors and releases of these distros and always end up back to Ubuntu. If I need an rpm package in a debian environment, I can always convert it.

I've not yet tried Gentoo or Arch because I'd hate to put forth so much effort only to find I'd rather be back in Ubuntu. I currently have KDE, Gnome and Fluxbox installed as Desktop Environments, but find Gnome the best for me.

If you want to test-drive any distro, try VMware on your current system to allow you to run multiple Linux OS instances and compare them for yourself.

Ultimately it will come down to your comfort level with any choice. Linux today is so much easier than it used to be and is certainly worth a look.

If you have patience: go for Debian. If you don't, go for Ubuntu or Fedora.

If you need a distribution where everything just works from the beginning, then you should choose a commercial variant of a Linux distro. Otherwise you will need to spend some time fixing things which doesn't work from start.

Here's a comprehensive list of some Linux distributions including some comparisons.

You can then choose one/several of these distributions and make a search on YouTube to see some demonstrations of each distribution which is available.

Fedora FTW!

liquidfunk said: Fedora FTW!

Fedora is too windows-like I think. (Hmm... Lindows =P)

hrod beraht said: Arch Linux with the Openbox window manager :)

(note: it's a window manager, not a desktop environment)

...

Thanks for this info! I'm not an expert there, but doesn't having a GUI imply having a DE? Just a window manager wouldn't be enough to specify a GUI? The "default" choice for Arch is LXDE, which incorporates Openbox.

it's super easy to use and deb files are super easy to install i don't know about the package systems of other linux oses but in linux you can just double click the deb and it installs for you

@Those suggesting Debian:

The only thing that turns me off to Debian is the aggressive open source attitude. I'm fine with open source things but I will use proprietary software if it suits me better.

You actually can run a Window Manager without a Desktop Environment. Think of the Window Manager as just the controls, and the Desktop Environment as the controls and the tools bundled together.

Anyway, if you want control, Arch Linux gives you tons of control and doesn't hide anything from the user. This DOES have a trade off, though, in that you shouldn't be scared at all of using the command line to get things done (at least until you get X and such up). If you want it to be easy to set up and use, though, Ubuntu is great for that.

melojo said: If you have to be convinced I wouldn't even bother.

This.

Kernel Sanders said: This.

I think the OP misworded it, what they really wanted (again, I think) was help picking out the distro that fit their needs best.

Nicholas Escalona said: @Those suggesting Debian:

The only thing that turns me off to Debian is the aggressive open source attitude. I'm fine with open source things but I will use proprietary software if it suits me better.

there's nothing really wrong with that attitude. it doesn't limit what you can install on your machine. you can install all the proprietary software you want with any linux distro. it just does not start off that way.

i suggest debian because of its stability. if you want a rock solid install, try debian. i think it's the most stable OS i've ever used. and i've tried them all.

wolfen69 said: there's nothing really wrong with that attitude. it doesn't limit what you can install on your machine. you can install all the proprietary software you want with any linux distro. it just does not start off that way.

i suggest debian because of its stability. if you want a rock solid install, try debian. i think it's the most stable OS i've ever used. and i've tried them all.

I absolutely agree. I am not a FOSS drum banger either, but it is the stability and predictability of Debian that I like.

Many talk about things working "out of the box". Interestingly enough, I've had excellent experience with most functions in Debian working just fine OOTB (Ubuntu is still better at this).

Try Ubuntu first; it's simple enough but difficult enough to keep you learning.

Nicholas Escalona said: @Those suggesting Debian:

The only thing that turns me off to Debian is the aggressive open source attitude. I'm fine with open source things but I will use proprietary software if it suits me better.

debian has non-free software repositories. You can also install whatever proprietary software you want(assuming it works for linux)

That said if you don't like ubuntu I don't think you'll like debian. Maybe it's just because I'm using Lenny, but I don't notice a significant difference(other than the fact that it isn't brown)