Which distro for non-clueless newbie? - Questions

This is a discussion on Which distro for non-clueless newbie? - Questions ; I know the "Which distro" question has been asked a million times all over the net, but so far I haven't found anyone asking this: What distributions are for someone who knows a lot about computers in general and can ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

  1. Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    I know the "Which distro" question has been asked a million times all over
    the net, but so far I haven't found anyone asking this: What distributions
    are for someone who knows a lot about computers in general and can learn
    reasonably fast? For example, I wouldn't want to end up with some generic
    driver that doesn't take full advantage of my device because it was too
    intimidating to ask for the specs; but on the other hand I don't want my
    first steps in the operating system of the future to be on a command line
    trying to figure out how to install X and wishing I was back in Windows.
    Any advice?



  2. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:03:26 -0400, Michael wrote:
    > I know the "Which distro" question has been asked a million times all over
    > the net,


    Results 1 - 10 of 22,700 for best distro group:*linux*. (0.57 seconds)
    found using
    http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

    Do bookmark the above url.

    > but so far I haven't found anyone asking this: What distributions
    > are for someone who knows a lot about computers in general and can learn
    > reasonably fast?


    Mandriva/drake
    http://doc.mandrivalinux.com/Mandrak...akx-intro.html

    Lastest release is called 2005.

    You can get it up and running on the GUI install.
    You can then start tweaking anything you feel up to changing.

    Create an empty ~6gig partition on your drive and you can dual boot
    your system if you do not have a spare disk.

    You can read about the install at
    http://doc.mandrivalinux.com/Mandrak.../Starter.html/

  3. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    "Bit Twister" wrote in message
    news:slrndd8d2d.6s0.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid...
    > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:03:26 -0400, Michael wrote:
    > > I know the "Which distro" question has been asked a million times all

    over
    > > the net,

    >
    > Results 1 - 10 of 22,700 for best distro group:*linux*. (0.57 seconds)
    > found using
    > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
    >
    > Do bookmark the above url.
    >

    Thanks! I will read these results. I'll post again if I have any more
    questions.



  4. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    Michael wrote:

    >
    > All in all, I'm sorry I asked the question in the first place, but I did, so
    > it remains open for discussion, if anybody feels they have something
    > original to say. After these two answers, I'm not expecting much more in
    > this thread, but I'm still listening. :-)


    Well, I hope you haven't taken this as an unfriendly response. It's not
    meant to be at all. If you said "I'm going to be doing tech support in
    the Linux arena", then obviously you need to be familiar with RH. But
    for personal use, it's all personal preference. and, as I said, disks
    are so big nowadays that you really can try out just about everything to
    find what you like. And you should, because you'll learn a lot that way
    just from seeing the differences. All too often I run across people who
    have only ever seen one distro, and they think that's the way things
    must be done.. play around, experiment, have fun.




    --
    Tony Lawrence
    Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com

  5. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    Michael wrote:

    > I know the "Which distro" question has been asked a million times all over
    > the net, but so far I haven't found anyone asking this: What
    > distributions are for someone who knows a lot about computers in general
    > and can learn
    > reasonably fast? For example, I wouldn't want to end up with some generic
    > driver that doesn't take full advantage of my device because it was too
    > intimidating to ask for the specs; but on the other hand I don't want my
    > first steps in the operating system of the future to be on a command line
    > trying to figure out how to install X and wishing I was back in Windows.
    > Any advice?



    You want to try some of the 250+ liveCD distros out there on this link
    for the school vacation...
    http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
    Knoppix is most recommended, followed by likes of Mepis, Kanotix,
    Quantian, DSL, etc. Quantian has xmaxima that allows formulas
    to be written and solved symbolically - very useful if you are high
    school student trying to get your head around maths, physics,
    electronics and so on.
    LiveCDs run off the CD without having to install and autodetect
    everything without having to go through manual set up routines
    (many have options to install).


  6. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    I looked at your post and the responses in a more analytical way. It just
    struck me that you were asking an honest question in hopes of the community
    sorting our your feeling of being lost in the sea of distro's. We have all
    been there and know what you are feeling. Frustratingly, they point you to
    the first step in your quest for knowledge. I believe they are giving you
    the best advice. The learning curve is steep and littered with many an hour
    of work/research to applied to no end.
    You will have to do the research and find the best distro for you. Linux is
    a wonderful undiscovered landscape that continues to grow. You can and will
    find your distro and make your home on that landscape.
    I do concur with the suggestion of Live CD trials. I have tried several and
    find them the best way to go. It saves SO MUCH time installing and setting
    up your machine. I like fedora, Suse, Mandrake or whatever its called these
    days, and DSL. I have installed and messed around with numerous distro's
    and found these to fit for me for individual reasons.
    Try out fedora and get under the hood.
    Just remember that these folks have traveled down the path you are embarking
    on. You will see their frustration is not directed so much at you as they
    are empathetic to the trials on the path you have chosen. Its a hard road
    but well worth the trouble to be free of expensive, massive bloatware that
    cant get it right. Good luck and welcome aboard.

    --
    William Hubner
    "A man of genius is privileged only as far as he is genius. His dullness is
    as insupportable as any other dullness." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    "Michael" wrote in message
    news:6uUAe.4159$IU1.1044@fe11.lga...
    >I know the "Which distro" question has been asked a million times all over
    > the net, but so far I haven't found anyone asking this: What
    > distributions
    > are for someone who knows a lot about computers in general and can learn
    > reasonably fast? For example, I wouldn't want to end up with some generic
    > driver that doesn't take full advantage of my device because it was too
    > intimidating to ask for the specs; but on the other hand I don't want my
    > first steps in the operating system of the future to be on a command line
    > trying to figure out how to install X and wishing I was back in Windows.
    > Any advice?
    >
    >




  7. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    > In article ,
    >


    Linux advocates get people all fired up with all the "its easy everything
    is compatible all the distro's work the same" garbage.

    In reality Linux is a useless mess flopping around peoples desktops like
    a fish out of water. Developers still work in the dark ages expecting
    everyone to "re-compile" everything or install RPM's that dont work half
    the time and to do things "their way" because they've been doing it that
    way for 20 years so it must be the best way.

    Its a total dark ages screw up as far as I can see with new complications
    arising every time a magazine wants to sell more copies by promoting "The
    latest and best" screw up distro thats of no practical use to anyone.

    Here is my best advice -

    Look for an enterprise distribution that offers professional support you
    pay for.

    Then if you dont actually want to pay obtain a derivative of that distro
    that is properly updated and maintained.

    You will still have an os that doesnt work half the time with
    applications that make you very annoyed because they're so slow and
    backward but you'll at least have the best linux can provide.

    None of the other issues are relevant. Linux is too much of a backward
    joke now.

    I'd take a look at red-hat enterprise or the free clone Centos as an
    example.


  8. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    On Wed, 05 Jul 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.questions, in article
    , bored@now.com wrote:

    >In reality Linux is a useless mess flopping around peoples desktops like
    >a fish out of water. Developers still work in the dark ages expecting
    >everyone to "re-compile" everything or install RPM's that dont work half
    >the time and to do things "their way" because they've been doing it that
    >way for 20 years so it must be the best way.


    That's funny, but _REALLY_ not up to standards for even an apprentice troll.

    Troll O Meter

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    __________________________________________________ _
    | | | | | | | | | | |
    ---------------------------------------------------
    ^
    |

    It's sad that the quality of trolls has gotten so bad over the years. I guess
    you aren't aware that the current fad is using the Debian packaging scheme in
    a distributions with code names like "Hairy Harlot", "Bloated Bulldog",
    and "Demented Duck".

    Old guy

  9. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    In article ,
    ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...
    > On Wed, 05 Jul 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.questions, in article
    > , bored@now.com wrote:
    >
    > >In reality Linux is a useless mess flopping around peoples desktops like
    > >a fish out of water. Developers still work in the dark ages expecting
    > >everyone to "re-compile" everything or install RPM's that dont work half
    > >the time and to do things "their way" because they've been doing it that
    > >way for 20 years so it must be the best way.

    >
    > That's funny, but _REALLY_ not up to standards for even an apprentice troll.
    >
    > Troll O Meter
    >
    > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    > __________________________________________________ _
    > | | | | | | | | | | |
    > ---------------------------------------------------
    > ^
    > |
    >
    > It's sad that the quality of trolls has gotten so bad over the years. I guess
    > you aren't aware that the current fad is using the Debian packaging scheme in
    > a distributions with code names like "Hairy Harlot", "Bloated Bulldog",
    > and "Demented Duck".
    >
    > Old guy
    >


    The sad thing is you actually believe thats a troll.
    Which probably tells everyone all they need to know.

  10. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    On 2006-07-05, bored@now.com wrote:
    > In article ,
    > ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...
    >> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.questions, in article
    >> , bored@now.com wrote:
    >>
    >> >In reality Linux is a useless mess flopping around peoples desktops like
    >> >a fish out of water. Developers still work in the dark ages expecting
    >> >everyone to "re-compile" everything or install RPM's that dont work half
    >> >the time and to do things "their way" because they've been doing it that
    >> >way for 20 years so it must be the best way.

    >>
    >> That's funny, but _REALLY_ not up to standards for even an apprentice troll.
    >>
    >> Troll O Meter
    >>
    >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    >> __________________________________________________ _
    >> | | | | | | | | | | |
    >> ---------------------------------------------------
    >> ^
    >> |
    >>
    >> It's sad that the quality of trolls has gotten so bad over the years. I guess
    >> you aren't aware that the current fad is using the Debian packaging scheme in
    >> a distributions with code names like "Hairy Harlot", "Bloated Bulldog",
    >> and "Demented Duck".

    >
    > The sad thing is you actually believe thats a troll.
    > Which probably tells everyone all they need to know.


    It certainly does; but we knew that already.

    While it is not 100% reliable, there is a strong correlation
    between correct spelling and grammar and a creditable post. I make
    allowances for typos, ESL, and even "finger memory", but when
    apostrophes are misused twice in one sentence (omitted, and used
    where one doesn't belong -- and ommitted again later, and in the
    follow-up), that is a sign of illiteracy.

    Coupled with an obvious ignorance of the subject, that makes the
    OP a very sad case indeed.

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, author
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
    ===== My code in this post, if any, assumes the POSIX locale
    ===== and is released under the GNU General Public Licence

  11. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    In article , cfajohnson@gmail.com
    says...
    > While it is not 100% reliable, there is a strong correlation
    > between correct spelling and grammar and a creditable post.
    >


    what an idiotic thing to say.

  12. Re: Which distro for non-clueless newbie?

    On Wed, 05 Jul 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.questions, in article
    , bored@now.com wrote:
    >In article ,
    >ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...


    >> That's funny, but _REALLY_ not up to standards for even an apprentice troll.


    I've really got to get a logarithmic scale for my troll meter.

    >> It's sad that the quality of trolls has gotten so bad over the years.


    >The sad thing is you actually believe thats a troll.


    I didn't think it made it up to the standards for a troll. If you think
    that your post was supposed to be humorous as well as useful, you need
    to spend some time in comp.os.linux.advocacy and see some of the experts
    playing.

    Old guy

+ Reply to Thread