Debian was confusing until squueeze came out. Everything worked out the box, after being introduced to
Advanced Options>>Expert Install mode.
The only problem I experienced was adding a repo that was unnecessary.
Other than that system just keeps on running. So I made an upgrade to wheezy and it didn't break.

Wheezy is testing, so yes: That is what testing is for.

-------------------------------

about some of the advices and opinions given in this thread:
So: NO. One does _not_ add testing or unstable to stable.
And no: one does not add this or that, just cause it is hip at the moment.
(the liquorix-kernel is not well tested with stable, to give an example. Its purpose is to be used with testing/unstable).

apt-get install debian-reference.
http://www.debian.org/doc/

Debian is neither difficult nor confusing as long one follows a few (very) simple rules.

1 members found this post helpful.

Agreed with j1alu...

Testing can be a pain in the behind when things break - which is why a mixed testing/unstable system is preferable in my opinion. That way you can pull an updated package in when needed.

Newbies should stick with stable though. If you're not prepared for manual configuration/fixing, xserver breakage and various bugs, then you should never consider running testing or unstable.

I'm now a bit confused. From what I understand:

Testing only breaks rarely, but if it breaks it can stay broken for a while, due to the way packages trickle down. A newbie will now know how to fix it.

Sid breaks moderately often; it's usually not too serious, it's easily repaired and gets fixed quickly, but a newbie won't know how to fix that, either.

Stable never breaks, but it has old software versions and reduced hardware support. A newbie trying to use their zooty new {insert_device_here} might have it not work properly, and won't know how to fix this. The Liquorix kernel might solve the problem, but it's not intended to run under Stable, so it could add instability - that a newbie won't know how to fix. On the other hand, I'm currently running Crunchbang on my netbooks; it's based on Stable, but has the option to install Liquorix - I did, and it has caused no problems whatsoever. Intended to run on Stable it might not be, but it seems to be doing it pretty well regardless.

Based on all this, it seesm the best option for a newbie is Stable+Liquorix, though problems might arise with some programs that occasionally need updating to new versions to work properly (I'm thinking of various MSN clones, which invariably stop working properly every time Microsoft changes something in the network; new versions fix the problem quickly, but a Stable user would have to wait a while).

I'm starting to question Debian's suitability for newbies after all... *sigh*

Changes, it doesn't look like you are confused.

I would just change one thing. Liqourix, like any non OEM source, can open a potential issue. That doesn't mean to say it will. I've used liqourix and did so to be able to have the last kernel that has been released (2.6.35) in deb format to successfully run ndiswrapper.

I wonder what someone would prefer

1. A stable system that occasionally (your IM example was excellent btw) needs to install more up to date software to be able to do simple tasks like chat online.
2. A system that they have to update the AV (and other security tools such as SpyBot) every day and if they don't the system will get infected and require alot more work than learning how to update Pidgin on Debian.

I'm running the latest Pidgin one one machine in Squeeze (it is the one machine I do need absolute stability on because it's for my studies at TAFE college) yet I obtained it from Sid and installed it. It was easy and, if I can make the point again, alot easier than going through the rigmarol with Windows just to keep it relatively clean.

In other words Debian is actually, despite appearances, quite noobie friendly and even more so than the OS (WIndows) they probably come from. Even if you gave them Ubuntu they would still have to learn how to install the latest Pidgin from an unofficial source like GetDeb so wouldn't it be easier to learn how to install it from an official source instead?

Here's a much easier way to think of it: Debian is Debian Stable. Experimental, Unstable, and Testing are nothing more or less than 3 stages of pre-release "quality control" that packages pass through on their way to being included in the next Stable.

Debian is considered to be a very stable distro, and one reason is that they have several layers of testing before the final release. This doesn't however mean that I recommend Testing or Unstable for production machines or inexperienced users! For a while it was trendy to say "Debian Testing is more stable than Ubuntu" but I really must disagree with that statement.

FYI the current Liquorix kernel (2.6.38) simply won't install on Stable. Liquorix does not support Debian Stable in any way, shape, or form. The only reason it's installable in CrunchBang is that Philip, the CrunchBang developer, hosts an older version of Liquorix (2.6.36) in the CrunchBang repository. This was released back when Squeeze was Testing instead of Stable so it works OK. But it will receive no bug fixes or security patches in the future.

For more info: http://techpatterns.com/forums/about...hlight=squeeze

Don't forget about the Backports repository: http://backports.debian.org/

I would enthusiastically recommend Debian Stable + Backports (but not Liquorix kernel) for beginner-to-intermediate desktop/laptop/netbook users who a) have good hardware support with the 2.6.32 kernel and "free" drivers, and b) don't need the latest version of every single application. (Obviously you can easily upgrade individual applications as needed.)

If on the other hand you need the latest kernel, drivers, applications, etc. then I really question whether Debian is the best solution. For that atypical type of user you really can't beat a "rolling release" distribution (such as Arch) in my opinion.

I installed / configured a Debian (6.0.1) desktop for the first time last Friday. Just getting off the ground with Debian (obtaining the correct media and getting it installed) requires marginally more effort than Ubuntu, whose goal appears to be making most aspects of the user experience brain-dead simple. But it's really not so bad. The installer does quite a bit of hand-holding (e.g. intuitive partitioning options), and a default desktop environment install gives you a fairly complete workstation with bells and whistles.

When it comes to desktop computing, I am not very biased in favor of either Ubuntu or Debian. But if I were in your shoes, I'd stick with Debian for the sake of long-term stability. GNOME is GNOME, and most end users only ever see high-level GUI apps anyway.

Well at least one of my machines must be a complete freak then because I have it on a Squeeze machine.

What is your secret? I get:

No secret, it just installed.

Have you posted on his forum to see if anyone else has come across this?

I'll try it on this machine (the one with 2.6.35) and see what happens, I'll let you know later.

EDIT: Check the screenshot.

The kernel will install and be operational BUT the headers is what has a problem with gcc. So if you want the kernel install the image but not the headers. BTW I didn't have that on my other machine at all so I think he must have changed the headers.

@k3lt01
They won't get an ubuntu machine to run as smooth as debian with only 512MB.
I'm running squeeze also have wheezy, my wireless network having connection issues in wheezy.

In think the question of the OP should be split in 2 parts :

Is Debian for newbie Users?
A well configured Debian system is pretty idiot proof and I think that is the case for most Linux distributions.
As long as the user has restricted or no access to administrative 'tools' the system will run forever.

Is Debian for newbie system admins?
Well it depends how 'newbie' he is.
If he is not afraid of using a command line interface and he knows how to use Google then Debian stable and/or testing should be pretty safe to use for him.


Debian testing :
Lots of people tend to think that using testing is very risky. Personally I think that testing is very stable and in the very rare occasions that something is broken there is nearly always a fix for it (often a easy fix).
I think you should look at it as a release candidate (that naming is a little less scary)

Eddy I had Ubuntu 10.10 running with 256MB RAM, the extra card come from my sisters laptop when she broke it. The only issue with Ubuntu itself on low powered machines is ureadahead. Disable or better still delete it and you can get Ubuntu to run quite easily on 256MB RAM.