I've just decided I don't want to use a Mac any longer and gotten myself a Tuxedo with Ubuntu installed. So still getting used to it. Any tips for newbies would be appreciated! Also, should I stick to Ubuntu or would you recommend another distro for someone like me (little experience)?
What distro for newbies?
- Thread starter xenixt
- Start date
Brickwizard
Well-Known Member
This reminds me of a story my friend told me a while back. His son was looking for a used car. So he asked quite a few people what kind of car he should buy.
Some said Honda, some said Toyota, some said Dodge, some said Jeep, some said Ford, some said Chevrolet, ...
He ended up buying a Hyundai. His dad asked him why that car, no one recommended it to you? His answer...
My girlfriend liked the color of this one.
It's been my experience not many people use a certain distro because it does this or that. They use it because it has cool graphics or a cool background logo.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much, all cars will get you there. It's the same with Linux.
Some said Honda, some said Toyota, some said Dodge, some said Jeep, some said Ford, some said Chevrolet, ...
He ended up buying a Hyundai. His dad asked him why that car, no one recommended it to you? His answer...
My girlfriend liked the color of this one.
It's been my experience not many people use a certain distro because it does this or that. They use it because it has cool graphics or a cool background logo.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much, all cars will get you there. It's the same with Linux.
Last edited:
I would recommend to start with one of these:
1. Linux Mint - widely used, great support.
2. Zorin OS - polished distro for beginners, not as popular as Mint.
3. SparkyLinux - my favorite, lightweight, easy to use.
1. Linux Mint - widely used, great support.
2. Zorin OS - polished distro for beginners, not as popular as Mint.
3. SparkyLinux - my favorite, lightweight, easy to use.
@dos2unix :-
Well, I definitely didn't go for our Pup because she looked "cool". Anything BUT. No, I went for her because she was recommended for resource-challenged hardware (which is what I had at the time).
Now, I could run anything I wanted. But I stick with Puppy 'cos I "fell" for her.....the most versatile and innovative concept I've ever found.
Those of us with a lick of sense will use what works for us, what we're happy to use and what will let us do what we need/want to do (with a minimum of fuss).
Versatile & stable, yet innovative & useful. That's what ya need.
It's hardly rocket science!
Mike.
Well, I definitely didn't go for our Pup because she looked "cool". Anything BUT. No, I went for her because she was recommended for resource-challenged hardware (which is what I had at the time).
Now, I could run anything I wanted. But I stick with Puppy 'cos I "fell" for her.....the most versatile and innovative concept I've ever found.
Those of us with a lick of sense will use what works for us, what we're happy to use and what will let us do what we need/want to do (with a minimum of fuss).
Versatile & stable, yet innovative & useful. That's what ya need.
It's hardly rocket science!
Mike.
Last edited:
try out several different linux distros. Main ones that are the best supported and easy to use are Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, Debian
I suggest just like when you want a new car, you try them out and see what is best for you. The only thing I suggest to stay away from is Kali and that is because it is not really geared towards everyday use. It is a special use kind of thing. Otherwise try them and enjoy.
Condobloke
Well-Known Member
Yes, ^^^^^^^
theLegionWithin
Active Member
the best distro is the one that runs the best and has the least issues on your hardware.
I started with MX & used it for 2 months, but last week I switched to Arch after I started having issues with MX and got tired of trying to fix the problems. the issues have not manifested in Arch.
I started with MX & used it for 2 months, but last week I switched to Arch after I started having issues with MX and got tired of trying to fix the problems. the issues have not manifested in Arch.
Condobloke
Well-Known Member
Set up Timeshift...it saves snapshots at a schedule determined by you, to an external drive
If things go south, it will restore system files to whichever date/snapshot you choose.
Worth its weight in gold.
Thanks, this makes sense. Just wanted to make sure before I get too deep into one.
Not true. In both cases.
Of course, but in order to tailor your system to your (and your hardware) needs you need to start somewhere. For example, majority of newcomers don't understand that in case of Linux a desktop environment is not part of the OS. I wouldn't recommend anyone to start with BunsenLabs or Bodhi (good distros, but cusomization is not that easy), WattOS (touchpad doesn't work out of the box), anything that comes without DE or even any rolling distro.
Many of us haven't been beginners for years or decades and don't remember how it feels to be a beginner. Sorry, but this kind of "philosophical" answers don't help anyone. All they do is confuse people.
Brickwizard
Well-Known Member
Your over complicating the case, Most newbies come to Linux to hopefully find a way out of a locked Windows system. There is no point at the initial stage to push the different DE's available, to get them started all they need is a solid distribution suitable for the specs of their machine with all the basic apps they need pre-installed, once they have got use to the way one Linux distribution works, they may ask for advice on different DE's or even start distro hopping, but vast majority will normally stick with what they start with.
If you can't remember how difficult it was to get started with Linux in the early days when most forums available were elitist and trying to get help was like going through the Spanish inquisition, then you may not have been around as long as you thought.
I look at it as a vehicle, Linux core is the driving force, the distributions is all the bangs and whistles [accessories] and the DE is the choice of paint and chrome.
My point, exactly. Most newbies are likely to judge Linux by their experience with the DE. That's why recommending a distro with no (or not intuitive) DE doesn't make sense.
Newcomers need a distro that will most likely work out of the box (sound, video, network, keyboard, mouse, touchpoad...), so forget the ones that come without preinstalled codecs etc. Take Puppy, for example. Great distro, but setting up persitent storage is not something newcomer can easily do.
I remember it very well. That's why I believe newcomers should get a friendly welcome and answers better than "The best distro for you is the one that is the best for you" or "Anything will do".
Are you sure you're arguing with the right person?
@Tomedi :-
Couldn't agree more.
Despite being a committed Puppy "fanboi" for well over a decade [
], I remember - and still know - that 'our Pup' is NOT the easiest lightweight distro to set-up. She's infinitely customizable, and unbelievably versatile (once you understand how she works).....but, because many things about Puppy are unique to her - and her ALONE - even I won't recommend her to beginners / noobs. If they learn Linux on Puppy, when they decide to go 'mainstream' they'll have to learn the nuts'n'bolts all over again (and to my mind that's not fair):-
...none of these exist in Puppy (I guess Busybox has to shoulder some of the blame for much of the latter, since we have to put up with whatever it comes with OOTB; it's been a long-standing, integral part of Puppy since the very early days). As for "running-as-root", WELL.....as far as the wider Linux community is concerned, that alone is the biggest "crime" a user can possibly commit (because such has been drummed into them for more than 2 decades, since multi-user came along). The net result being that many people act as if they're afraid of their own machines, but.....I digress.
'Fear not root...'
Far better for noobs to learn 'standard' Linux practice & get used to that FIRST. Then, by all means, come and have a play with Puppy (with her odd ways of doing stuff) ONCE you have some experience under your belt. By then, you may be in a better position to appreciate 'our Pup's' finer points..!
She's an 'acquired taste', for sure.....but the vintage is superlative once your palate adjusts.
Call me a 'traitor' if ya like (!), but I will direct beginners to Linux Mint. Simple as that. I used it briefly for a couple of weeks 10 years ago, during my initial distro-hopping phase; although it wasn't really to my taste, I could still appreciate the sheer amount of work that had been expended to make it easy-to-use.....and for beginners, dipping a toe into the waters of the Linux eco-system for the first time, this is ALL-IMPORTANT. We want to make them feel welcome, NOT send 'em away with a flea in their ear....
(shrug...)
Mike.
^^^ +1.
Couldn't agree more.
Despite being a committed Puppy "fanboi" for well over a decade [
], I remember - and still know - that 'our Pup' is NOT the easiest lightweight distro to set-up. She's infinitely customizable, and unbelievably versatile (once you understand how she works).....but, because many things about Puppy are unique to her - and her ALONE - even I won't recommend her to beginners / noobs. If they learn Linux on Puppy, when they decide to go 'mainstream' they'll have to learn the nuts'n'bolts all over again (and to my mind that's not fair):-- Sudo
- Apt-install
- Synaptic
- A full Bash vocabulary & suite of functions
...none of these exist in Puppy (I guess Busybox has to shoulder some of the blame for much of the latter, since we have to put up with whatever it comes with OOTB; it's been a long-standing, integral part of Puppy since the very early days). As for "running-as-root", WELL.....as far as the wider Linux community is concerned, that alone is the biggest "crime" a user can possibly commit (because such has been drummed into them for more than 2 decades, since multi-user came along). The net result being that many people act as if they're afraid of their own machines, but.....I digress.
'Fear not root...'
Far better for noobs to learn 'standard' Linux practice & get used to that FIRST. Then, by all means, come and have a play with Puppy (with her odd ways of doing stuff) ONCE you have some experience under your belt. By then, you may be in a better position to appreciate 'our Pup's' finer points..!
She's an 'acquired taste', for sure.....but the vintage is superlative once your palate adjusts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call me a 'traitor' if ya like (!), but I will direct beginners to Linux Mint. Simple as that. I used it briefly for a couple of weeks 10 years ago, during my initial distro-hopping phase; although it wasn't really to my taste, I could still appreciate the sheer amount of work that had been expended to make it easy-to-use.....and for beginners, dipping a toe into the waters of the Linux eco-system for the first time, this is ALL-IMPORTANT. We want to make them feel welcome, NOT send 'em away with a flea in their ear....
(shrug...)
Mike.
Last edited:
Yes, Linux Mint for newbies.
PallaviGodse
New Member
I feel Ubuntu is the best distro for beginners, I found it simple and easy to use.
I will make it easy. You should go with something that is easy to get and install. A major distro.
I suggest any of these. No particular order than my own. All are fine for beginners
1.. Fedora
2.. Ubuntu
3.. Mint
4.. Debian
they are all well supported and easy to install if you follow the directions.
Beware those that push just one thing as the one size fits all solution.
I love fedora. It is in my opinion the best for me. But I do use debian on a few pieces of hardware that it works better on. So it has to be what works best for you and your equipment.
I suggest any of these. No particular order than my own. All are fine for beginners
1.. Fedora
2.. Ubuntu
3.. Mint
4.. Debian
they are all well supported and easy to install if you follow the directions.
Beware those that push just one thing as the one size fits all solution.
I love fedora. It is in my opinion the best for me. But I do use debian on a few pieces of hardware that it works better on. So it has to be what works best for you and your equipment.
I'll toss Lubuntu into the mix.
It's easy to install. It's not prone to being buggy. It's intuitive, especially to a new Linux user. There's ample support. The LTS builds are supported for a few years. It's light on resources. It doesn't come with a pile of software installed, but comes with everything you'll likely need for general operation.
I'm also heavily biased. I am not currently testing or a 'member' (on the team). I don't have enough bandwidth seeing as the cell carrier has done something to the tower and I'm pretty much stuck with crappy satellite while I await fiber. When that changes, I'll resume testing.
It's easy to install. It's not prone to being buggy. It's intuitive, especially to a new Linux user. There's ample support. The LTS builds are supported for a few years. It's light on resources. It doesn't come with a pile of software installed, but comes with everything you'll likely need for general operation.
I'm also heavily biased. I am not currently testing or a 'member' (on the team). I don't have enough bandwidth seeing as the cell carrier has done something to the tower and I'm pretty much stuck with crappy satellite while I await fiber. When that changes, I'll resume testing.
if I am wrong then educate me but isn't Lubuntu a derivative of ubuntu? basically same thing or are there significant differences?
