Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

THE MOST USER-FRIENDLY LINUX?

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
July 25, 2002 2:31:25 PM

What's the most user-friendly Linux? For someone, who is just searching for Win alternative? With easy installation and stability?

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>

More about : user friendly linux

July 26, 2002 3:18:32 AM

Mandrake 8.2, RedHat 7.3 and Suse8.0. I just got Mandrake on a contankerous system and it is not acting up. KDE desktop makes leaving MS Windows easy. It is still Linux with all the command line stuff you can wish for. Mandrake also touts an i586 kernel.

Signature? We don' need no stinkin' signature!
July 26, 2002 3:23:00 PM

yeah but mandrake sucks. i would go redhat. it is just about the same but better, mandrake is too much like windows with a lot a of bugs. if you are planning on goin xwindows, which i would suspect you are, then make sure you have enough power for it, xwindows is not as efficient as MS windows
Related resources
July 26, 2002 10:59:22 PM

I won't agree or disagree if Mandrake has lots of bugs, I haven't encountered any in the few days it has been running. It can be a lot like MS Windows if you want it to. So what? You also can make it a command line shell, I think. I haven't tried that yet. Besides todays computers are meant to have a GUI. I'll try RedHat when they release their next distro.

Signature? We don' need no stinkin' signature!
July 27, 2002 4:02:36 AM

i use RH 7.3 for all my systems except one, which is win2k just so i have a computer that can run just about anything i need without to much hassle. i tried mandrake and i didnt like it at all. the major problem with both RH and Mandrake is security. the security can be broken, now in comparison to windows its better, but the default install of OpenBSD has had 1 security bug in the last 6 years, thats impressive, im working on OpenBSD now. hopefully all my systems will be running that soon!
July 27, 2002 10:42:17 PM

The security issues arn't just with redhat or mandrake. Any distro that comes with that particular package will be effected by it. If you are a competent(sp?) sys admin you should know that any default install is not 100% secure. BTW, openbsd has had 100's of security fixes since they started in 96.
July 28, 2002 5:34:44 AM

and if you read my post correctly i said 1 security bug in the "default" install. and that was in apache, i believe, but not a 100% sure about that one
July 29, 2002 4:40:07 PM

There is currently 9 patches out for openbsd 3.1 fixing security issues. I am not saying openbsd is bad, hell I use freebsd at work. Just that there is more security issues with bsd then what you think, granted there is less with bsd then with linux.
July 29, 2002 7:31:33 PM

ok let me revrase
"One remote hole in the default install, in nearly 6 years!
" quote from www.openbsd.com

and i would say it is still the most secure OS for a PC out right now
July 30, 2002 10:34:41 AM

I've found <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/us/products/suse_linux/i386/index.h..." target="_new">SuSE 8.0</A> to be very good, but I think any of the current crop would be ok. If you're concerned about RedHat/Mandrake security, take a look at <A HREF="http://www.bastille-linux.org" target="_new">Bastille Linux</A> which goes a way towards tightening their default installs (and as alluded to above, nothing is 100% safe and still usable).

I think that <A HREF="http://www.ximian.com" target="_new">Ximian Gnome</A> would be worth looking at for you as well (You need a base distro like RedHat, Mandrake or SuSE first). It's a real nice desktop environment. It's got an easy to use install/upgrade manager, lot's of good software, and should make the transition to Linux easier. Set your system up with <A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org" target="_new">Mozilla</A>, <A HREF="http://www.ximian.com/products/ximian_evolution/feature..." target="_new">Evolution</A> and <A HREF="http://www.openoffice.org" target="_new">OpenOffice</A>, and you'll be a long way there...


<i>Do I look like I care?</i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by poorboy on 07/31/02 00:38 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 30, 2002 2:16:23 PM

Thank you!
And what are the hardware requirements, exactly for CPU and HDD-space? I will install X-Window, and probably GNOME. I won't install any server's programs, etc.

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>
July 30, 2002 3:42:18 PM

For a nice system, I'd suggest similar specs to a modern Windows PC. A lot of people say you can use slower hardware, but I disagree, unless you're expecting less...

For minimums, I think 600MHz, 256MB RAM, and 4GB HDD are about right. It's just a guide though - You can work with less, say 300MHz, 128MB, 2GB. But I'm typing this on a 560MHz, 384MB, 20GB box, and I find myself waiting sometimes - for big apps like OpenOffice, or Mozilla.

As for the rest of it, I'd suggest an Nvidia based card, because their drivers are pretty good. Matrox, SiS, some Radeon, etc are ok too, but not as hot for 3D - most anything will work in VESA mode. LAN seems ok with pretty much anything recent, but I use Netgear, Dlink, and 3Com. For audio, I'm running a ratty old YMF based card, but Soundblaster is common, and even AC97 works ok. If you need any specific info, let me know.

<i>Do I look like I care?</i>
August 1, 2002 8:18:00 AM

I use ximain gnome at work too. Its very simple to install, plus I hate spending time configuring my desktop when I have more important stuff to do at work ie system maintance/upgrades. Whatever you do, dont install any gnome2 snapshots from ximain cause it will probably screw up your box like it did mine :) 
August 11, 2002 6:42:55 AM

I agree that you should get an nvidia card for your linux box. Their driver support is great. It's kind of pointless to get a brand new Ti4600 as there isn't much game support for linux yet, but an MX card, or a GF2 GTS (like me) will do just perfectly.

I can also vouch for the linksys cards. They're awesome. I've never had a problem with them at all in linux. I've gone through a few systems, all have had the LNE100TX card in them, and all have worked great.

If you want to just get up and running ASAP, I'd definitely go with mandrake. I found it to be easier to set up than rh and suse, and you'll learn a lot from it. Once you're ready to move on, then try something else. I didn't stick with rh very long, and then went on to SuSE. It worked great, but I did have a few problems with it before my hard drive died. Now I'm waiting for mandrake 9.0 to be released before I put linux back on here.

If my baby don't love me, I know, I know, her sister will.
August 26, 2002 3:47:48 AM

Lycoris is the most user freindly desk top version of linux that I've seen. Quick easy install,easy to learn to use, and it's not bloated with a bunch of half functional apps.Lycoris was previously Redmond linux and is written from a calaera source.A great introduction to linux!
Steve
August 27, 2002 5:47:28 AM

I'm real happy with Mandrake.

Aside from the fact it's the only gawddam one that will install on my Dell laptop (red hat locks during install), it's running stable once again.I had it a while back, but chucked it so I could try some other stuff (read: gamez).But any Linux install is going to be about 10 to 20 times more stable than windows. Strictly in terms of hours.

Although, I've *GOT* to figure out all theze nifty shortcuts I'm used to with IE. Like right now, with mozilla, I'm freaking the hell out that I can open "tabs" with teh same browser window. What the heck is the keyboard shortcut? Is there one? Holding down shift and left clicking seems to "save as", which is useful in itself. Ctl-t opens a tab, but never downloads the page.

That "tab" function alone just made my entire [-peep-] night.I think I'm just going to load up on coffee tomorrw and deal with no sleep...

C@lling it like I c it...
August 27, 2002 6:25:10 AM

just click on the link using your middle button (or scroll wheel/button). use in junction with shift to load in background.

Disregard my previous post.
August 27, 2002 6:30:43 AM

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was *JUST* going to post the exact same friggin thing, word for word.

Damn fine call!!!

C@lling it like I c it...
September 14, 2002 11:50:03 AM

All linux distributions have both strengths and weaknesses.
If you are new to linux I would recommend SuSE, allthought its not totally free, or debian (which has, or had, a bit tricky packet handler).

When you get more familiar try out mandrake or debian.

If you want security you often have to pay in terms of user friendliness. Bastille is one, Owl is another. Suse have descent security also.

Or, if you want, compile and maintain your own little distribution (Linux From Scratch).

Stay away from Redhat... its full of bugs and some 7.x versions are compiled with an development version of gcc which might produce a lot of strange effects if you dont stick to redhat packages.

There is a lot of distributions but I think most can agree on that most above is the more frequently used ones.
!