First stop, Knoppix!
 

For all other newbies out there, I suggest Knoppix as a test drive. You can boot from a CD, No changes made to your computer, and you can get a good feel for Linux environments. There are other bootable CD OS, so search for those if you don't like Knoppix. It's a great way to test drive Linux though.:newbie:

Knoppix is a wonderful CD. I just wanted to clarify something.

Knoppix can be installed to the hard drive. You can find instructions all over the web.
however, simply, DON'T DO IT!!

Knoppix was designed as a live CD only.
If you plan on actually installing Linux (and plan on continuing to use KDE (which is what knoppix uses)), then I would suggest starting out with Kubuntu (http://www.kubuntu.com). You can move to other distributions later if you choose, but start there.

Actually, I would disagree slightly with that.

Knoppix has come a long way since the early "Linux on a CD" versions. It is a very competent version of Linux with some clever features. If you "install" it to HD, you have a Debian installation with pretty much the same look and feel as Knoppix. With the latest 5.2 version, the is also an option to install it so that it boots up and runs exactly like the CD or DVD version. If you have several spare partitions (as I do) and like to play, that's an option.

If not, I wouldn't choose Ubuntu or Kubuntu. I found both of those far too prescriptive of what they would or would not let me do. The argument on "which distro is best" is extremely partisan, and most folks will tell you that the one they use is best. I've tried most, and most are still on partitions in this machine.

The one I use all the time is Fedora 7 - it's very competent, and works with every piece of hardware in the machine or connected to it. No other distro has managed that.
Mepis (latest version - I forget the number) is close but can't handle my SCSI drives which is a serious limitation.
Slackware 11 is supremely capable - probably the most capable - but is not intuitive or user-friendly. It's a steeper learning curve. Long term I may move to it full-time.
Debian is competent, but in my machine it crashes too often for me to trust it. I have two installations - stable and unstable: stable it old and doesn't have the features of Fedora etc, and unstable is unstable (for me).
SuSe 10.1 is OK but it's a heck of a palaver to install any new stuff to it, and it takes ages.
(K)ubuntu is on there, but so "fiddly" and "no, you can't do that" that I've given up on it.

That, of course, is one man's experience with one PC - which may have its own view on the subject, which is colouring mine.

1. Yes, knoppix has come a long way. It is still a live cd, and (even with version 5.1.1) still has specific problems once installed. If you want to install linux and not deal with those problems (which don't usually show up right away, in my experience.), install a distribution designed for it.

2. Yes, ubuntu and kubuntu ARE prescriptive. That's exactly why I recommend them for new linux users, who don't know enough about linux to choose some of the more advanced alternate methods. You kinda grow out of them, if you ask me. But they help lessen some of the learning curve (I'm sure there are other distributions that can do that as well)

However, this is not to say kubuntu is the only choice. Personally, I use debian. But, I don't really care what distribution you use: whatever makes you happy (or whatever works on your hardware, as the case may be). To say one distribution or another is best is completely ridiculous. If this were the case, other distributions would long be gone by now (except for a few hobbyists who want to be different).

Kubuntu was a recommendation; by far not the only choice.

P.S. try debian 'testing' (right now it's lenny); it isn't too old like stable and is very stable. I have the same experience you do with stable and unstable -- neither is a good choice for most users. Unstable was designed for people willing to help hunt down bugs anyway...