OK I'm new to this whole thing. I have some Unix experience from a former network admin. job at a local univ. Is Linux strictly command line based or is there a GUI interface? I have heard alot about Slackware and I need some honest advice about flavors and so on. Also I have a laptop with Windoze Vista and even with a gig and a half of ram it is still a dog. Since Linux is more command based I am assuming it is less resource intensive, is this in fact the case?
I am looking to make the switch because I own a web development business that is starting to boom and I need something fast, intuitive, and reliable. I already use a great deal of Open Source software such as Open Office, the GIMP, Scibus etc. So the switch should be fairly painless. How tough is Linux to install, implement , and learn?

I know this is a lot, but I need answers soon.
Only serious responses please.
Thanks In advance
Indy.

You do not need to learn command line to use linux, but learning it would surely help when you encounter problems (which if you still don't want to learn it, go to forums, such as here for community support )...
If you're extremely newbie in Linux, I don't suggest you to go for Slackware.
Newbie distro : Ubuntu, Debian, Suse (I don't recommend)
Moderato distro : Red Hat
Master of the unknown universe(hehe... got this from xine) : Linux From Scratch, Slackware
Yes and no.
Yes because it is fairly easy to pick up linux
No because you'll still have to learn new stuffs (not command line).

Hope this helps!!!

PS: I personally don't really like closed source(Windows), but I really can't say Windows Vista is slow. I've tried Windows Vista with 512Mb RAM, AMD 3000+, and it worked like a breeze.

In my opinion, once you get used to the idea of a UNIX filesystem and mountpoints instead of drive letters, linux is far easier. Linux doesn't have _a_ gui, we have several. You have many choices in GUI. GNOME and KDE are complete desktop environments, while Fluxbox, windowmaker, and Enlightenment are more basic "window managers". (Although Enlightenment kinda blurs the border). Generally, yes Linux is far less resource intensive. We could argue all day over the causes of that, but I attribute it to the generally higher-quality lower-bloat free software code.

You say you want to do web development. You should consider going with a KDE-based distro, as I hear good things about quanta, an app designed for KDE. I know many web-devel folks swear by their favorite Adobe product, which I should mention does work if you buy crossover office, if that's a must for you. If it's not, quanta is great.

I'll recommend KUbuntu, mostly because I generally find Ubuntu to be easy enough, and KUbuntu is just Ubuntu, but with KDE. I mostly recommend KDE for Quanta, but if you come to prefer GNOME or something else, go for it.

Your best bet for right now would be in the ubuntu family of distros (distro is short for distribution, which is the collection of software and patches that makes up a typical linux 'flavor') I recommend you go to http://www.ubuntu.com and download the LiveCD .iso file, then burn this to a cd (you can look up iso burner on sourceforge.net if you don't already have something) put this CD in and restart your computer, then just follow the yellow brick road.

info here:
Linux itself is just the kernel, I tend not to call this an operating system since there's not enough in just the kernel to do anything productive it just interacts with your hardware for the rest of the software.

ubuntu is currently one of the most well supported, easiest to install and use distributions, it includes gnome (a GUI) as a default, with the option of installing several other gui's if you desire and many other programs, including gimp etc. I recommend (some will differ in opinion here) that as a linux newbie, even if you have a 64 bit processor, just download and install the i386 version, basically more programs work better on i386 since it has been standard for so long, you don't have to do complex work arounds to make certain programs work right. Ubuntu does not require ANY command line knowledge to get started, CAUTION:BACK UP YOUR FILES BEFORE INSTALLING there are several places where one stray mouse click will wipe out your entire hard disk if you don't read everything.

Linux is generally pretty fast on most hardware. MUCH faster than vista on the same hardware. As you get more involved with linux you will very likely need to come back to forums like this and ask more questions, there is still a learning curve for windows users, although with some previous Unix experience you may be farther ahead then I'm assuming here.

Good Luck, and remember even though it's free it's a good idea to donate when you find a distro or piece of software that you really love, that way it'll stay around longer!

Lucas

Well, if it needs to be fast, then I guess your best bet would indeed be Ubuntu. And don't get confused by one of the earlier posters' comments about KDE. Ubuntu uses the Gnome desktop by default but it's extremely easy to add KDE afterwards if you see any need to do so (it's as simple as selecting a few software items from a list and clicking on "Apply"). And the whole "newbie" epithet is one that I have always resisted. Ubuntu isn't any less powerful than the rest but it's more willing to reach out to beginners. Two other excellent distros (in my opinion) are Fedora and Mandriva but Ubuntu has the slightly better software manager.

Whether Linux is less resource intensive depends on the uses it is put to but 1.5GB seems ideal to enjoy the best performance in most situations. And of course, it will be less resource intensive than that Vista glutton .

Learning Linux, by the way, isn't all that complex as long as you have an open mind. Every now and again we see people walk away simply because they were expecting to find a free version of Windows. If you need to learn quickly and thoroughly, I would suggest that you read something like the Ubuntu Bible. It bundles tons of information that would otherwise take you weeks or months to collect and study.

If you're comfortable with UNIX, then I don't see a problem with Slackware.

I thought Slackware didn't offer Gnome or am I wrong there? I bet all of it can be compiled/installed manually but it seems that the OP is looking for a quick install.

You are correct about GNOME. Slack still comes with KDE, though.

We specialize in serious responses....

One of the big reasons that Linux is seen as hard to learn is that people know Windows (or think they do). If you have even been exposed to the concept of Unix, you are miles ahead.
You don't have to learn the command line..but you will..simply because it is hands-down the easiest way to do certain things. As someone already pointed out, you can get up and running without ever opening a terminal.

The "getting started" link below might also be useful.

CDs are cheap.
Download some distros and burn them. You can try most distros without installing anything on your computer (yes, from the CD).
When you have tryed and fell in love with Ubuntu, install it and you will quickly become impressed, then addicted.

I want to take the time to say thanks for all the great responses. I remember building 286's for a living with DOS 3.3 a 40MB hard drive and 1MB of memory on actual chips. We thought we were hot **** back then. So command line does not bother me but I like the convenience of GUI. I am almost sold on the Ubuntu distro. I am just wondering about the availability of software and if the distro type makes a difference as to which software it can run.
Thanks again to all of you.

availability of software depends on the software. If it's free or open source, you'll almost certainly find it in the Ubuntu repos. Theoretically, any distro can run any Linux software, but some distros package it up prettier. If you go with one of the *buntu's you won't have any trouble there.

It depends on what you mean by "availability of software". If you intend to run commercial applications such as those made by MS, then no doubt some applications won't install (not natively at least - emulation can help). Then again, there is a massive load of open source applications (Ubuntu has about 21000 software packages available) and many offer excellent substitutes for commercial products. Plus Ubuntu must have the broadest user base (at least as far as desktop usage is concerned) so your chances of finding compatible software are higher than if you picked one of the more obscure distributions.

some time ago, I settled on the Debian/Ubuntu/Mepis family because I like the Synaptic Package manager, and because it seemed that the repositories had the greatest selection of SW. I don't know if this is still true**--eg OpenSUSE, PCLinuxOS, and others are all very good and complete.

Even if the desired SW is not in the repository, there is always a way to get it installed on any Linux system.

**Nor can I prove that it ever was true....