Help me pick a Linux OS

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The_Eric

Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,267
Location
Iowa
Hi, I've been wanting to get into Linux again and would like some help picking a distribution that suits our needs.

Background: Previous flavor was Ubuntu (dual boot) on an AMD rig (dual core 5200+ 2.7ghtz) with 4 meg of ram (viewed as 3.25). It ran okay(ish) but not as fast or smooth as XP currently does. We didn't have too many problems navigating, but may have had a hard time adjusting. Also ran in on an old P4 rig with 2 meg of ram- similar performance results. It seemed glitchy on both machines. Maybe something I did wrong?

After some light reading here, it seems that certain revisions (distros?) are better suited to a certain hardware setup?

We're longtime XP users (with my wife getting a Win8 laptop recently) and would like something semi similar, but that's not a necessity. I tried reading through the various sites like Mint, Ubuntu and Fedora, but came away with my head spinning, not really gaining any sense of direction.

I'm hoping to draw from your experiences, and get a semi solid recommendation. I'd like to start as a dual boot and transition to full time. We don't do a whole lot, mainly web surfing/reserching and banking with the occasional OpenOffice stuff and PDF's.
 
The newest version of Ubuntu 13.10 is really easy to use and all of the drivers worked out of the box. If the wife wants something Windows ish try Linux xp which looks like Windows xp a lot. Mint Linux works really well on most machines due to drivers being pre installed.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
It seemed glitchy on both machines. Maybe something I did wrong?


Distro choice is personal preference -- I have mine, but so does someone else. Neither of us are wrong.

As for a seemingly "glitchy" experience, remember that performance is often bottlenecked not by the CPU or RAM, but HDD performance. If these are old, slow hard drives you're using, consider upgrading on the cheap -- it'll make a tremendous difference.
 
I've had good luck with Linux Mint - seems to run OK on a netbook and they do have your choice of desktops - their Cinnamon, KDE, or Gnome.

I wanted to like Ubuntu but don't like the direction of the UI.

The Elementary one looks really good as it's trying to be Mac like, which, IMHO is the best UI out there.

Fedora is good if you want to be on the bleeding edge and/or are a RHEL admin.
 
Mint. Here is why:

It is Ubuntu-based, which means excellent hardware compatibility and thousands of pieces of software.

It's (main) GUI's, "Cinnamon" and "MATE" are conventional desktop interfaces. Cinnamon will require 3D-accelerated graphics, MATE will not. MATE is very quick and light weight. Ubuntu's "Unity" GUI is a resource-intensive fat pig. It's pretty, but a little slow.

It's default software selection is common: Libreoffice (OpenOffice), Firefox, Thunderbird, VLC, etc.

It comes pre-installed with all of the plugins and codecs you'll need to function.

I would stay away from the Puppy-type stuff. If you want light weight AND easy-to use, there is always Xubuntu and Lubuntu; both of which feature lightweight GUI's (XFCE and LXDE respectively).

Also, Red Hat clones like CentOS and Scientific Linux, while being waaaaaay behind the curve, are supported for years and years, and are fairly light weight and rock, rock solid.
 
As already mentioned the best way is to brun a few iso to disk and use the live cd option. Play wtih them a little and see what feels best to you.

I settled on Xubuntu LTS version. In the end it all comes down to personal preference and what works for you.
 
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
As for a seemingly "glitchy" experience, remember that performance is often bottlenecked not by the CPU or RAM, but HDD performance. If these are old, slow hard drives you're using, consider upgrading on the cheap -- it'll make a tremendous difference.



Hard drive is a Western Digital 320 gig WD3200AAKS-009K0, or at least that's what it says under properties.



Thanks for the input guys, I'm going to stay up late tonight and download some different versions. I have to wait until midnight when the bandwidth limitations (which I've already exceeded) are temporarily lifted. I'll start with Mint MATE, grab Lubuntu, and maybe Puppy for kicks.

uc50ic4more, I'm curious as to why you warn to stay away from Puppy?
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
uc50ic4more, I'm curious as to why you warn to stay away from Puppy?


I certainly do not mean to confuse my opinion with a warning of any sort: Puppy, by all accounts, is a fine, stable, and perfectly adequate OS for folks with minimal needs who need to make use of antiquated hardware. I tend to suggest other OS's, though, because:

1) Puppy's default software (image editors, file managers, et al.) are usually chosen primarily on the basis of being light weight (although, of course, you can manually install anything you want after installation!); and I have found these selections to be problematic for people new to Linux when other OS's feature Firefox, Thunderbird, Chrom(ium), VLC, Libre/ OpenOffice and more common Linux desktops like Gnome or KDE (both of which require more resources than Puppy is built for). If you have a computer equivalent of a '76 Pinto then YES, Puppy is your OS; but otherwise you're simply consigning yourself to a...

2) Butt-ugly OS. I hate when people take the honourable step towards using a free (not just as in "no-cost" but in "freedom") OS only to end up with something that looks and feels like it is from 1992. If you have even reasonable hardware, you can have a much finer user experience. Modern desktop OS's use new (and more resource-intensive) technologies.

3) Other, more common and popular OS's are more robustly supported. If you ever need a quick YouTube-able or Google-able tutorial on using a piece of software or solving a problem, you're likely going to end up watching someone using Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. Puppy is an Ubuntu derivative; but again, has a very specific purpose that comes with burdens I feel uncomfortable placing on folks new to Linux.

I guess I would much rather someone's introduction to day-to-day use of a Linux-based OS be an impressive one that looks and feels as modern as a Windows or Mac system, is MUCH more well supported and is free and secure (are you reading this, NSA?!) to use. Ubuntu and its' immediate, official derivatives provide users with a popular (read: well-supported, with a large user base and friendly, reliable support) suite of OS's that serve a variety of needs.

I should also note that Ubuntu is making rapid advances in phones, tablets and other devices; so my suggestion to use Ubuntu also anticipates that one day we may well be using one OS, and one interface, across all of our devices.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I'll start with Mint MATE, grab Lubuntu, and maybe Puppy for kicks.


If you like Mint, also check out Kubuntu. I found that Kubuntu works much faster on my machine than Ubuntu did with its Unity interface, and it (Kubuntu) has a very slick look to it.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
If you like Mint, also check out Kubuntu. .


To confuse matters further: Mint has a KDE edition.

Ubuntu has it's own interface, based on GTK3 called Unity. Mint has a GTK3 interface called Cinnamon. Both are rejections of the desktop environment they used to use, called Gnome. When Gnome went from version 2 to version 3, they completely changed how the desktop worked and that angered a whole lot of people. This anger inspired some developers to take the freely-available source code for Gnome and fork it and build their own desktops.

Ubuntu has a few official derivatives that do not use the (heavy and slow) Unity interface: Kubuntu is based on the KDE desktop environment, Xubuntu on XFCE and Lubuntu on LXDE.

Mint also has a KDE and XFCE edition of their OS in addition to their Cinnamon and MATE editions. MATE is a fork of the much-beloved, but now obsolete and no longer supported Gnome 2. Gnome 2 was by most accounts the perfect desktop environment: Full-featured, rock solid, customizable, simple, light weight and highly standardized.

I suggest that anyone looking at using Linux first think about what software they want to use and what kind of hardware they want to use it on. The beauty of Linux-based OS's, which can also be a frustration, is that there are so darn many of them; and their purposes and niches overlap so much. There are beautiful desktop-oriented distributions that require the latest, greatest hardware but can do everything but make your espresso in the morning (although you have the freedom with Linux to hack your espresso maker and make it happen if you wish). You have distributions that are meant for low-spec hardware. Some are bleeding-edge and feature the very latest versions of everything and are updated daily. Some are meant for more stable, unchanging office or work use. Some release every 6 months like clockwork, others release when ready. Some have corporate sponsorship, others are community-driven. It's tough to choose; but when you get your priorities defined it becomes much easier. I always suggest the Ubuntu family because of the stability of the releases, the size and friendly nature of the support communities and widespread availability of software. With Ubuntu for phones, TV's and tablets in rapid development, Ubuntu may quickly become the de facto standard for non-tech users to use across all of their devices.
 
The_Eric, I have the same PC in my fleet as you, AMD 5200+. The best distro is a moving target. Ubuntu and Mint both ran fine, but a bit pokey, just like XP on this PC.


That all changed when I installed an Intel 80GB SSD drive. Completely and dramatically changes the performance of this unit.

Whether you choose Mint, Ubuntu, Fedora, Win7, etc...do look for a good deal on a 120 or 128GB SSD with 5 star reviews, especially this weekend. You'll be glad you did. Night & day performance increases.

cheers3.gif
 
GAH! Right now I'd be happy just to get the ISO burned to disk. The instructions, while seemingly straight forward don't add up. It doesn't help that they are all written by Linux geeks and seem to make some assumptions about the users skill/knowledge on the subject.

I burned an image this morning by just selecting the rar file. When I opened the disk, I could see the various file folders like the instructions seem to indicate, but it won't boot from it. I tried using a md5 verification product suggested by the Linux site but am not savvy enough to make it run.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
GAH! Right now I'd be happy just to get the ISO burned to disk. The instructions, while seemingly straight forward don't add up. It doesn't help that they are all written by Linux geeks and seem to make some assumptions about the users skill/knowledge on the subject.

I burned an image this morning by just selecting the rar file. When I opened the disk, I could see the various file folders like the instructions seem to indicate, but it won't boot from it. I tried using a md5 verification product suggested by the Linux site but am not savvy enough to make it run.


If I recall correctly, you need to download a special program to burn an iso image to a disk, you can't use the native Windows disc burning program.
 
Okay, I've got it figured out. I tried burning a second copy of Mint which was downloaded from a torrent instead. Same results. After paying attention, I got lucky and noticed that it didn't even try to boot the disk. It wouldn't boot from the dvd because the bios was set to the 3.5 floppy first, then the hard drive second. After changing the boot sequence, I acheived success! Right now, I'm running Mint MATE from disk...
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
GAH! Right now I'd be happy just to get the ISO burned to disk. The instructions, while seemingly straight forward don't add up. It doesn't help that they are all written by Linux geeks and seem to make some assumptions about the users skill/knowledge on the subject.

I burned an image this morning by just selecting the rar file. When I opened the disk, I could see the various file folders like the instructions seem to indicate, but it won't boot from it. I tried using a md5 verification product suggested by the Linux site but am not savvy enough to make it run.


If I recall correctly, you need to download a special program to burn an iso image to a disk, you can't use the native Windows disc burning program.


Yes, you are correct. I used the Linux geek recommended program (ios burner?) and burned an image of the file I downoaded.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I burned an image this morning by just selecting the rar file.


A .rar file is NOT a disk image. Just like a .zip file, a .rar file is a compressed file with a bunch of stuff in it. In your case, the .iso disk image was "zipped" inside that .rar. file. Why? Who knows.

I know this much: If you got your disk image from the where you're supposed you it wouldn't be zipped or rared or anything like that. If you get your .iso from ubuntu.com or linuxmint.com you're going to be downloading a .iso file. From there, any and all reputable disk burning programs have the facility to burn images.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Windows 7
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
45K
MysticGold04
S
  • Locked
Linux Mint 4.0 Daryna (Gnome) Released.
Replies
1
Views
734
ToyotaNSaturn
M
  • Locked
like some of you, linux is a curiocity of mine.
Replies
16
Views
7K
Master ACiD
Back
Top