| Author |
Message |
John King
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: Linux distro for newbies? |
|
|
| What is a stable, easy-to-use, and newb friendly Linux distro? (I've never used Linux before.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
NeonNero
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 113
Location: Ålesund, Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| For a beginner, I'd recommend either Ubuntu or Debian. Ubuntu is actually based on Debian, so they are pretty similar, and both are easy to maintain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
hybinet
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I second Ubuntu. It's a tad bit more user-friendly than Debian, despite being very similar. Ubuntu also comes with more recent versions of most packages (at least for now). Debian is supposed to be more stable because its older packages have been tried and tested for a longer period, but I haven't noticed any instability with Ubuntu, either.
Just to name one, I love the new Uncomplicated Firewall (ufw) in Ubuntu 8.04!!! That means I no longer need to mess up my firewall settings from time to time. Of course you can install that on Debian too, but it takes a bit of tweaking (due to Debian's older Python). |
|
| Back to top |
|
pclissold
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 459
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I add my vote for Ubuntu. I still prefer Shorewall to UFW - lets you have really fine grained control over traffic to/from your Linode. |
|
| Back to top |
|
John King
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What about CentOS, isn't it made for servers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
pclissold
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 459
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You asked for "stable, easy-to-use, and newb friendly". CentOS only does stable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NeonNero
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 113
Location: Ålesund, Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John King wrote: What about CentOS, isn't it made for servers?
Well, just about any Linux distro can be made for servers, depending on what you install on it, really.
CentOS is loosely based on Red Hat / Fedora, and also comes with a package system.
I don't use it myself, though, but experience tells be that Ubuntu might be slightly better if you're just starting out on Linux. I believe the Ubuntu edition installed on a Linode is without X windows (ie. much like the "Server" edition you can download from the Ubuntu website).
If I were you, I'd start off with Ubuntu, and later move on to CentOS once you're more comfortable with the basics of Linux (in general). That's just my personal opinion, though. If you want similar package systems, you have Ubuntu and Debian in one group (both use APT), and CentOS and Fedora Core in another group (both use YUM).
What's great about Linux, is that with all the different flavors of it simply draws up the selection to personal preference.
Each distribution is just as stable as the next; how well it runs depends on your own fine tuning of it.
Considering you're absolutely new to Linux in general, I'd go for Ubuntu, as I believe it's more beginner-friendly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SteveG
Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NeonNero wrote:
CentOS is loosely based on Red Hat / Fedora, and also comes with a package system.
CentOS is identical to Red Hat EL, except for removal of trademarks.
NeonNero wrote:
If I were you, I'd start off with Ubuntu, and later move on to CentOS once you're more comfortable with the basics of Linux (in general).
My personal opinion would be, why bother? Either is quite suitable for a Linode, but the details of adminning them are different (different package managers, different network configuration, etc.), and I don't see much reason to change from one to the other. Unless you just want to, of course. I would definitely stick with one of the majors (Debian/Ubuntu, CentOS or Fedora) for initial install, just because there are more people around to answer questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
fendrish78
Joined: 30 May 2008
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I actually find Centos to be easier to work but I guess its all personal preference. I prefer rpm and yum to ubuntu's package management and its pretty standard init script and chkconfig make my life easier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
John King
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for all the help! I think I will go with Ubuntu. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NeonNero
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 113
Location: Ålesund, Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fendrish78 wrote: I actually find Centos to be easier to work but I guess its all personal preference. I prefer rpm and yum to ubuntu's package management and its pretty standard init script and chkconfig make my life easier.
We had a RHEL server someone installed for us once. It was installed, but never put into proper use. When it came time to put it into production use (or any use, for that matter -- it was just sitting there in an off-site datacenter space we rent), I tried my way around for a few weeks, and found rpm to be an endless headache to me (since I'm also used to Gentoo, that's saying a lot), so we ended up reinstalling it as Debian instead.
Yum (CentOS/Fedora) might be lightyears ahead compared to using "plain" rpm (Debian/Ubuntu), though, and probably just as easy to handle as apt, but I'm just guessing since I haven't had any first-hand experience with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SteveG
Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NeonNero wrote: Yum (CentOS/Fedora) might be lightyears ahead compared to using "plain" rpm (Debian/Ubuntu),
Errr, what? The rpm command on Redhat et. al. is equivalent to dpkg on Debian and its derivates. Yum is Redhat's (but originall SuSE, if I remember correctly) attempt at an apt (Debian) equivalent. I find Yum slightly clunky compared to apt, but that may be down to having much more experience with dpkg/apt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NeonNero
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 113
Location: Ålesund, Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
SteveG wrote: NeonNero wrote: Yum (CentOS/Fedora) might be lightyears ahead compared to using "plain" rpm (Debian/Ubuntu),
Errr, what? The rpm command on Redhat et. al. is equivalent to dpkg on Debian and its derivates. Yum is Redhat's (but originall SuSE, if I remember correctly) attempt at an apt (Debian) equivalent. I find Yum slightly clunky compared to apt, but that may be down to having much more experience with dpkg/apt.
As I said, since I hadn't had any first-hand experience with it, I only made a wild guess. I wasn't aware of the comparison of rpm to dpkg. Fortunately (for me), I haven't yet been "forced" to deal with dpkg directly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
flb
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject: Re: Linux distro for newbies? |
|
|
John King wrote: What is a stable, easy-to-use, and newb friendly Linux distro? (I've never used Linux before.)
I would recommend Centos. Ubuntu and Debian are good too however, Centos is very complete and easy to administer remotely.
Centos lets you start and stop services by simply typing service start,stop,restart service-name..ie service restart sendmail.
The logging in Centos is better. If you have a problem look at /var/log/messages or whatever your working on. I find Centos more complete in that regard.
I really like Slackware but you should install it at home and learn about it before you try to handle it remotely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AverageGuy
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 14
Location: Georgia, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
SteveG wrote: NeonNero wrote: Yum (CentOS/Fedora) might be lightyears ahead compared to using "plain" rpm (Debian/Ubuntu),
Errr, what? The rpm command on Redhat et. al. is equivalent to dpkg on Debian and its derivates. Yum is Redhat's (but originall SuSE, if I remember correctly) attempt at an apt (Debian) equivalent. I find Yum slightly clunky compared to apt, but that may be down to having much more experience with dpkg/apt.
To be accurate, Yum is a total rewrite of Yup which was the rpm package manager for Yellow Dog Linux, not SuSE. You're partially right, Yum was written to support Redhat.
Jim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
